The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The defendant brought about the victim's wallet, but this was intended to find the victim's wallet owner and return it to the victim on the following day, so there was no intention of illegal acquisition.

(2) At the time of the Defendant’s finding out of the victim’s possession, the Defendant did not have any possession of the victim’s wall.

(3) The Defendant is treated with a detailed cerebral typhism, and the prosecutor acting on behalf of the Defendant stated that he did not have any money inside the wall by repeatedly 2 to 40 minutes from her, making a reply to her whether he/she was stolen, and that he/she did not have any money within the wall. The prosecutor acting on behalf of the Defendant stated that he/she did not have any meaning to investigate money, and that he/she was a false statement that he/she attempted to steal an article inside the wall in his/her face with his/her face-to-face personal identification, and that he/she attempted to commit a theft in his/her face-to-face personal identification. Thus, the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendant was inadmissible

B. The lower court’s sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant's intention to illegally obtain the victim's save and the card in the victim's save and the card obtained therefrom is recognized.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

(1) The Defendant asserted that the prosecutor acting on behalf of the public prosecutor at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation was asked first as to whether he was paying money within the wall, but the prosecutor acting on behalf of the public prosecutor was asked as to the theft of the wall, such as the background and method of bringing the wall, etc., and the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he stolen the wall that he attempted to put the wall in the wall, and then asked as to the money within the wall.