The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was aware that the Defendant borrowed the instant vehicle from the previous one or used by the Defendant, and had no intention to illegally obtain it.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of mistake of fact

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts can be recognized.

① The Defendant, while driving a siren, immediately stopped in front of the week when the victim left the car, and there was no other vehicle or person among them.

② The Defendant laid down the victim’s wall with a strong direction towards her beamed, thereby cutting the victim’s wall.

(3) The Defendant, while making a cell phone call after taking the house, was driving immediately and left the station of gas station without being able to do so.

(4) The defendant did not notify a siren company of the fact that he was aboard.

⑤ In relation to the instant case, the Defendant, who received a phone call from a police officer, denied the fact that the police officer was on board.

In addition, the defendant did not disclose who is a kind of friendly vehicle from the defendant to the investigative agency.

6. The victim's identification card, credit card, etc. was submitted to the police, but no cash was made.

B. It is deemed that the Defendant had the intent to use and dispose of the above wallets and its contents as the property owned by the Defendant, excluding the victim in the event of the above wallets.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable in light of the instant sentencing conditions and records as to the assertion of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

4. According to the conclusion, the defendant.