The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as indicated in the instant facts charged, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, that he stolen the property owned by the medical corporation of the victim (such as the compact fex, the amount and the amount of the fee, ample-, ample-, ample-, ample-, ample-, ample-making, and typ-making (hereinafter “the damaged property”).

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who served as a nurse at “E convalescent Hospital” (hereinafter “the instant hospital”) located in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si.

1) On September 12, 2016, at around 14:00 on September 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) stolen the victim medical corporation’s market value, which was kept in custody in the hospital at the fourth-story nurse room of the above hospital; (b) with the non-compact, the amount and the amount of the fee; and (c) via a ample, ample, ample, ample, etc.

2) On October 6, 2016, around 14:00, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft with a vialop, ample-, ample-, ample-, ample-, ample-, ample-, ample-, and ample-, which is the market value of the victim medical corporation owned by the F Medical Foundation, and was kept in custody

3) On October 7, 2016, at around 14:00, the Defendant: (a) stolen the victim medical corporation’s market value, which was kept in custody of the hospital at the fourth-story nurse room of the above hospital; (b) with ample vialle, ample, ample, ample, ample, and ample.

4) On October 9, 2016, around 11:00, the Defendant: (a) stolen the victim medical corporation owned by the F medical foundation; (b) the unclaimed number of the market prices; (c) ample ample ample ample ample ample ample ample ample, ample ample ample ample ample ample ample ample ample b

B. In full view of the evidence in its holding, the lower court’s judgment is consistent and specific as to the Defendant’s act, content of damage, embarrasity and response of the witness, and the situation before and after the crime, and the contents of the statement are not inconsistent with other evidence and appears to be false on the witness’s statement.