The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit a theft of visibility, etc. as stated in the lower judgment. However, in the case of [Attachment 21] No. 21, only the fact that the Defendant acquired and sold the visibility of the victim G located far away from the taxi of the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of all the facts constituting larceny is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the No. 14, 15 of the attached Table No. 14 and 15 by adopting and putting the witness R and S’s respective legal statements without any factual basis, appearing in the court of the lower court by misapprehending the legal doctrine, was erroneous in the violation of the rules of evidence.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (three years of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Summary of the facts charged of this case and summary of the judgment of the court below

A. The gist of the facts charged in the instant case was that the Defendant, while driving a D taxi at night, had a breathous passenger, and had the passengers locked to commit theft with a high visibility between the passengers locked.

On October 27, 2017, around 01:30 on October 27, 2017, the Defendant: (a) laid the F hotel in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, and (b) cut off the victim G with a H flock equivalent to KRW 13 million at the market price of the car in hand using the cresh in which he was locked.

In addition, the Defendant: (a) from March 14, 2014 to October 27, 2017, from around March 14, 2017 to around October 27, 2017, 22 passengers on a taxi operated by the Defendant using the aforementioned method, stolen 22 in total 147 million won and one mobile phone in total from passengers on a taxi operated by the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s summary of the lower judgment: (a) consistently purchased from the Defendant the visibility of the attached crime from the investigative agency to the lower court, i.e., the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court; and (b) the Party B consistently purchased the

f. written statements;