The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had no intention of theft because he thought that the damaged goods of this case were abandoned, and that there was no intention of theft.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, C, an accomplice, recognized the fact that the victim's property was stolen together with the defendant in the investigative agency and the court of original instance, and the defendant also recognized the fact that the victim's property was stolen with C at the time of the police investigation. The damaged articles of this case appear to have been easily recognizable by anyone who is being displayed in front of the store immediately and is under the management of the store. The defendant and C, mainly committed the crime of this case using the four times-supper, can be recognized by combining the defendant with C, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, so the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, even though the defendant had been punished twice for the same crime in 1965 and 1979 (one time of suspended sentence, one time of imprisonment and one time of imprisonment), the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims, it is recognized that there was no record of punishment for the same crime after 1980; some damaged articles were returned to the victims; the motive, process, means and method of the crime of this case; circumstances after the crime; criminal punishment against the accomplice; the balance between the criminal punishment and the criminal punishment against the accomplice; the defendant's age; character and conduct; the environment; and other circumstances that are conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, are considered to be somewhat inappropriate.

3. Conclusion.