The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

On July 5, 2012, the Defendant, around 14:30 on July 5, 2012, committed a theft of eight HP car kackers (hereinafter “instant eight car kackers”) equivalent to the total market value of KRW 297,600 in the three-story stores of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Victim D.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case even though the defendant was purchased and possessed in Embrypt, etc. which was far earlier than July 5, 2012, and the defendant was not stolen from D, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The sentencing of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

E, the security personnel of D points on the assertion of mistake of facts, stated in the court of the court below that “I classified her mother and her mother while patroling the store, and discovered the Defendant and look at her eye.” The Defendant appeared to have observed a witness by putting the kart storage in the store for the household goods, which was 20 to 30 minutes after the Defendant’s storage of the kart in the kart, and returned to a store in the kart. The Defendant appeared to have opened the kart storage in the kart. The Defendant did not deem that the kart storage in the kart was set up in another display stand, and the kart was included in the kart until the moment when the kart was put in the kart.”

(49 to 53 pages of the original trial records). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① a man who has engaged in a 'mother on the day when the criminal records of the defendant were not verified,’ was able to think of, and carefully observe, the conduct of gathering.

At the three-story computer supplies store, it is doubtful that a man who has engaged in a son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's k