The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

The judgment below

Part of acquittal.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) Defendant 1’s mistake of the facts (as to the facts of the crime in the case of 2016 order 6017 order of the judgment below) (as to the facts of the crime in the case of 2016 order of the judgment below), Defendant had already known the J of the location of the K BB passenger car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) as indicated in the judgment of the court, the J had already thought that the instant vehicle will bring about the instant vehicle, and thus, there was no fact that the J had the J cause him to bring about the instant vehicle, such as

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the facts (the part not guilty in the judgment of the court below), the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim C as stated in each of the facts charged can be fully recognized.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

In the application of the indictment in the case of the 2016 Highest 6017 Highest 6017 case, the Prosecutor “Article 31(1) of the Criminal Act” was “Article 30 of the Criminal Act”. Of the facts charged, the Prosecutor sent the address to the text message and caused J to bring the said car.

“The address was sent in writing.”

“A thro, 6 to 7 driving cars “a thief by causing the said car to bring one vehicle for theft.”

“A vehicle was stolen in collusion by causing one vehicle to bring the said vehicle into one.”

"Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment has been filed," and this Court has been permitted to change the subject of the adjudication.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

On the other hand, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is related to the existing facts charged, and as long as the facts charged are changed by permitting amendments to indictment in the trial as above, the legitimacy of the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts

However, there are reasons for reversal of authority above, but the prosecutor's mistake.