The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the property owned by the victim G that the defendant stolen on January 10, 2020 on or around January 10, 2020, foreign currencies are not equivalent to USD 1 million in total, such as US dollars, e.g., US dollars, etc., but equivalent to USD 35,000 in total.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

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

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged (related to Paragraph 2 of the facts charged in the judgment of the court), around the F Hospital located in Gunsan-si, Si, Gunsan-si on January 10, 2020, the Defendant accessed the victim G from the taxi in front of the F Hospital located in Gunsan-si, under the influence of alcohol, and after approaching the victim G, “Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that I

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendant could recognize the fact that the Defendant included the foreign currency equivalent to KRW 1 million in total, including US dollars and emulation, on the stolen property that was stolen from the victim, as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment.

① On January 10, 2020, the victim stated that since reporting the first theft damage by the Defendant, foreign currency equivalent to USD 1,000,000, such as US dollars, was included in the damaged goods. On January 10, 2020, the lower court also stated in the court below on relatively concrete statement on the circumstances, etc., of keeping KRW 1,00,000,000, such as USD 1,000,000, which was the thief.

② The above statement by a victim is consistent with the main contents of the statement, there is no unreasonable or contradictory part in light of the empirical rule, and the victim does not seem to have any motive or reason to make a false statement unfavorable to the defendant.