All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) Defendant (1) and Defendant 6’s list of offenses (hereinafter “the list of offenses”) attached to the lower judgment’s judgment (hereinafter “the crime of larceny”) do not have any evidence to acknowledge the crime.

(2) In the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the police arrested the Defendant for the thief case (the instant thief crime) and seized objects other than cash.

However, since evidence that can be seized without a warrant after an urgent arrest is limited to the minimum scope necessary for the investigation of a crime that constitutes a ground for urgent arrest, seizure of objects other than cash is illegal.

In addition, there was no need for urgent seizure of seized objects at the time of seizure.

Therefore, all the articles seized during the above process are illegally collected evidence in violation of warrant requirement.

(3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (each of the crimes committed during the period from 1 to 5 table of crime: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, and each crime committed during the period from 6 to 9 table of crime: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months) is too unreasonable.

2) The seizure of Samsung Digital Ca, which is the evidence of the facts charged by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) is lawful as the seizure of the voluntary submitted material conducted in a manner agreed by the defendant and the procedure is lawful.

The second evidence is also admissible as legitimate evidence.

Although the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. 1) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant committed the theft of this case can be sufficiently recognized as indicated in the lower judgment.

① The Defendant led to confession at the time of interrogation of the suspect (79th page of the evidence record). The lower court did not accept the confession, but did not support it.