The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant has not stolen the victim’s Handphones. The Defendant is not guilty of facts.

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

2. According to the records, the Defendant, on December 13, 2019, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than eight months for fraud, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 29, 2020.

As a result of the conclusion of the above judgment, the crime of this case and the crime of fraud for which the judgment of the defendant became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in accordance with the first sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, a sentence against the original judgment should be imposed in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent judgment.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. In light of the following facts, as the court below properly stated in the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the appearance of the suspect taken from CCTV installed at the scene of the instant crime on the day of the instant crime and the appearance of the Defendant taken from CCTV installed in the E in which the Defendant resides, and the Defendant’s handphone was found in the room of the Defendant, and the Defendant was punished several times as a crime of theft by opening and opening the door of a corrected vehicle and opening the door of a stolen object, as well as committing the instant crime under the same veterinary act around November 2, 2019, the following day of the instant crime, even around the scene of the instant crime, the Defendant opened the victim’s vehicle and fully recognized the fact of theft by opening the victim’s vehicle and driving the handphone owned by the victim.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

4. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is followed again after pleading.