All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (i) asked the victim misunderstanding of the facts as to whether he was the subject of the wall, and then asked the victim whether he was the subject of the wall, he acted to show his money on the part of the defendant when he was prone, and the victim was de facto unable to wear the wall, and it was confirmed that he was the subject of wall prior to the locking.

In full view of the statement, the defendant's transfer theft records, etc., the defendant's larceny crime is recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The above-mentioned sentence sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing is unfair because it is too unfasible.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the allegation of the grounds of appeal as to the prosecutor’s mistake of facts, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged are as follows.

On March 26, 2017, the Defendant, within the rest room of E 203:0 on March 26, 2017, in E 2017, up to the 1st floor of E 200, the Defendant 1, No. 1, No. 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1200, 120, 120, 1,000, 1,000, 1,000, 1,

In other words, they stolen them.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of embezzlement of deserted articles in possession on the following grounds: (a) the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged.

As evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, “I ambry G and locked at a soup room on the day of the instant case, and there was no brying which took soup as to take place at around 05:00, and there was no brying which took place.

Therefore, it is necessary to find a wall with G and ask the surrounding people about the wall, and among them, it is necessary to look at only the exclusive criminal defendant, and it will bring about the wall.