The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is not aware of the fact that he steals another person’s articles.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, that is, the victim H of the witness at the court below stated that "the defendant was seated in the nearby stairs where the bicycle was installed, she was intending to do so, and she was flicking at the defendant's clothes when she tried to do so, and she was flicking, and the defendant and the bicycle became dead (see the trial record No. 59 of the trial record). The defendant was arrested at the police, and the defendant was arrested at the police (see the 16th page of the investigation record). In light of the following circumstances, considering that there was no bicycle appearing on the victim's place where the defendant was found (see the 16th page of the investigation record) and the distance between the place and the place where the bicycle was discovered, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant stolen the bicycle of the victim H as stated in the criminal facts in the

In other words, the victim G returned to the court of first instance on June 28, 2016 and did not have any goods stored in the warehouse, and the CCTV was confirmed even if there was no goods stored in the warehouse, and the defendant was found to have taken the place in which the goods were taken out.

The statement (see, e.g., 85 of the trial record). As a result of the verification of CCTV, as shown below, the Defendant appears to have stolen the victim G's objects, and the Defendant alleged to have found the goods left to the victim G, but the victim G did not have any fact of leaving the goods to him/her (the trial record).