The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant does not commit a misunderstanding of facts against the victim D’s bicycle.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding a mistake of facts, in particular, an investigation report (Evidence No. 11, an investigation record No. 141 through 143), the defendant's statement at the prosecution (Evidence No. 20, an investigation record No. 222) and the confession statement at the court of first instance, etc., the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts that he stolen the victim's bicycle as stated in the decision of the court of first instance. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. The lower court, on the assertion of unfair sentencing, sentenced the Defendant to four years of imprisonment within the scope (three years of imprisonment or six years of imprisonment) set forth in the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant had been subject to punishment for habitual larceny on two occasions; (b) the Defendant again committed the instant crime since one year has not passed since the completion of the enforcement of the sentence; (c) the Defendant committed repeated crimes within the short period; (d) the degree of damage was not significant; and (e) his/her mistake was divided.

The degree of damage caused by the instant crime is relatively minor, and in light of the method of the said crime, it is deemed that the risk or harm is relatively minor compared to the degree of the charge imposed by the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which applies to the instant crime, and in full view of all other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Although the defendant denies the new theft of D's bicycle for the first time, the defendant is confused with multiple crimes committed by himself from the investigation process.