The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. There was no misunderstanding of facts that the Defendant stolen a man’s handculs owned by the victimJ for men.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit, on September 23, 2019, on the ground that at around 16:00, the Defendant was found to have stolen the Defendant’s knife by means of hiding the Defendant’s knife on the left side of the Defendant’s knife, on the ground that at around 16:00, the Defendant’s kn

B. The lower court determined on the assertion of unfair sentencing: (a) under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant’s quality of each crime, such as exercising violence without any particular reason and interfering with business; (b) the fact that the criminal records of punishment for the same kind of crime are several times; (c) considering the favorable circumstances in which the victim of the damage to special property does not want punishment against the Defendant; and (d) taking into account the sentencing guidelines set forth in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the first crime (Interference with Business) within the scope of recommended punishment in the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Commission in consideration of the sentencing conditions set forth in Article 51 of the Criminal Act / [the scope of recommending punishment] 2 crimes (the scope of recommending punishment] without any basic area (6-16 months) [the scope of recommending punishment] within the basic area (6-16 months) of the theft of general property (including general larceny) [the scope of recommending punishment] / [the scope of recommending punishment for a large number of victims under Article 1 (General Violence].

The sentencing of the court below seems to be appropriate, and there is no special change in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the court below, so the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too vague.