The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. There was no intention to steal the physicalization recorded in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant physicalization”)

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake, the Defendant’s intent of theft against the instant physicalization is recognized.

The defendant laid down a brutization of children, and at the time, the defendant asserts that they had a bruttion out of the store in which they want to brut their own house in different stores.

The defendant asserts that I would like to say that I would like to make an account to I, as I think I would like to see the sports of this case, and that I would like to establish another store.

However, the defendant's wife stated that he was unable to hear the statement from the defendant to that effect.

The Defendant: (a) taken the instant sports in the packaging box out of the burial; (b) did not notify the occupants of such fact.

In the event that the defendant has been out of the store as above, even if the defendant's wife wants to pay for the gymmetricization with the store, the goods should be specified in detail for the correct settlement of the price. Accordingly, it was necessary to bring the gymization of this case again and show, or explain the purchase items by visiting the store directly by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not confirm the above process at all.

In other words, even if the defendant's assertion is based, it could be sufficiently aware that the defendant did not pay the price for the exercise of this case.

Therefore, the defendant would pay the price for the sports of this case.