The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake 1) The list of crimes in the original judgment (hereinafter “list of crimes”) is the list of crimes in the original judgment.

A) As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny), the Defendant is M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”).

2) The remodeling project of the Gangwon-gun L Apartment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction project”).

(2) As the Defendant was aware of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief), there was no intention to commit theft since the new shares and the work scrap from the removal process were taken out with the permission of Q from the management officer of the above apartment.

3) It is difficult to readily conclude that the instant theft crime was based on the Defendant’s theft habits. B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) imposed on the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) under the crime List No. 1, which is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., M’s director in charge of managing the construction site of this case, from the investigation agency to the court below to the court below, allow Q Q to use recyclable water, new stocks, etc. in repairing another apartment out of the scrap metal from the construction site of this case, and thus, it should be collected from the body of scrap metal under the contract with Q even if it is impossible to recycle. The above statement corresponds to the above statement made by Q, and the Defendant appears to have been aware of the above circumstances at the time of the crime of this part (Evidence No. 256, 257 of the evidence record, however, the Defendant appears to have been aware of July 7, 2012.