The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was raised in the trial, and the defendant applied for a participatory trial through the statement of grounds for appeal, but the appellate case cannot be a case subject to a participatory trial under Article 5(1) of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials, and thus, the defendant's application is rejected

According to misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles and copies of CCTV screen pictures, the lower court omitted its judgment despite the fact that the victim intentionally released the wall from the passenger air of the subway station, and as long as the victim intentionally left the wall, it did not constitute the crime of embezzlement of stolen property by possession of the Defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “When a sentence is to be pronounced, the facts to be prosecuted, summary of evidence, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes shall be clearly indicated,” and Article 323(2) of the same Act provides, “If a statement of facts constituting the grounds for excluding the establishment of a crime, punishment, increase or decrease of punishment, or a statement of facts constituting the grounds for reduction or exemption has been made, the judgment thereon shall be clearly stated.” However, the assertion that the victim intentionally posted wall is merely a mere denial of the elements of a crime to the effect that the wall brought by the defendant is not lost or occupied, even though the court below did not expressly determine the above argument of the defendant, unless the court below explicitly stated the criminal facts, summary of evidence, and application of statutes, it cannot be said that there was omission of judgment in violation of law, even if it did not make a judgment on the above argument of the defendant.