The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and the fact that the instant stone owned by the victim was transported to a housing construction site on the land M, N, and E, the Defendant owned by the instant land, which was in violation of the rules of evidence.

However, at the time when the Defendant owned the instant land, there were a large number of stones on the instant land, but the Defendant was constructing the said housing.

From L to the point of view that it is necessary to look at the above construction site, it was merely that the stones in the instant land were thought or used to L, and the victim did not know that he would bring about the instant stone to the instant land.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of theft against the substitute stone of this case.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds of the victim, F, and G's legal statement without credibility. The court below erred by misapprehending facts or violating the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below to determine the violation of the rules of evidence by mistake of facts and evidence, the Defendant allowed the Defendant to use tin in the instant land in a stable field even though at least did not know that tin in the instant land belongs to the victim’s ownership, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by these evidence.

may be seen.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts as alleged by the Defendant and violating the rules of evidence.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.

① The Defendant resided near the instant land, and cultivated mushroom, and the victim at the lower court’s court’s trial did so.