A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

On November 1, 2014, the defendant C brought 9 pools equivalent to 600,000 won at the market price of the victim owned by the victim E in Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-do, based on the self-level standards, and loaded on the truck contained in pool.

As a result, the defendant stolen the property owned by the victim together with C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant’s partial statement

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records;

1. Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. The defendant's assertion as to Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the fact that the defendant was committed in a passive manner according to the defendant C) asserts that the defendant, as a Chinese citizen, was unaware of whether his or her act bringing about the standard in the mountain without a arbitra, constitutes a crime.

Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that a misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime pursuant to Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable reason to believe that the misunderstanding does not constitute a crime. It does not mean merely a site of law, but it means that a misunderstanding does not constitute a crime under general circumstances but a misunderstanding that one's act constitutes a crime but does not constitute a crime under special circumstances and that there is

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do15931, Sept. 12, 2013). As asserted by the Defendant, solely on the ground that the Defendant had no knowledge of intent or illegality with respect to the instant crime, the circumstance alone did not constitute a crime

Since it is difficult to see that the defendant's act constitutes a mistake in law, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.