The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the theft of paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, the defendant, in relation to the fact of the larceny of paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, only he had been in order to find out the victim's cellular phone from the history of subway No. 2 of the subway No. 1 of the judgment of the court below,

(2) With regard to the larceny under paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below, no defendant has stolen the relevant victim's mobile phone device.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted each of the larceny above is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the judgment of the court below on the larceny of Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below (the larceny of September 9, 2018), based on evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant was holding the victim's mobile phone at the time of inspection by the police officer, and the defendant and the victim were on board the same train (the same time zone as the subway vehicle number of the same subway vehicle) with sufficient opportunity to steal the above mobile phone.

On the other hand, with respect to the defendant's assertion that he acquired the aforementioned mobile phone along with empty wall 2 line E in the subway line E history, the following circumstances can be acknowledged based on the same evidence: (i) the victim did not get or get out of the E station on the day of the instant case; (ii) the defendant alleged that he was a street cleaners in the station with the aforementioned mobile phone; (iii) the street cleaners was placed on the ground that he was sent to the street cleaners in the station with the aforementioned mobile phone; (iv) although there was a street cleaners who was put on the wall from the person actually in an irregular situation, the given street cleaners made a statement that he was received after the time he was inspected by the police officer; and (iii) the Defendant did a doubtful act within the subway, and therefore, he was within the subway.