The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victim used the funds for the escape and the defendant withdraws one million won by using the knife card as stated in the facts charged. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination:

A. Before determining the Defendant’s assertion of ex officio determination, this paper examined ex officio.

A prosecutor has reached the trial for the first time, with the name of the crime from "thief" to "computer-use fraud and embezzlement", and with the applicable provisions of law from "Article 329 of the Criminal Act" to "Article 347-2 and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act", and applied for an amendment to an amendment to an indictment with the following facts charged as stated in the facts charged (the judgment which is used separately). Since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

In addition, according to the records, the Defendant, at the Suwon District Court on November 9, 201, sentenced two years to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the Defendant’s theft case at the Internet National Newspaper on August 12, 201, and the theft case.