The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

On April 11, 2011, the Defendant, on the thief on April 11, 201, did not bring a half of D’s gold thief.

주거침입, 2011. 6. 17. 절도, 여신전문금융업법위반 및 사기 부분 피고인은 E가 체크카드를 잠시 보관해달라고 하여 가지고 있다가 단팥빵을 구입하면서 위 카드를 자신의 것으로 착각하여 사용하게 되었고, 금목걸이를 구입하면서 위 카드를 사용한 적은 없다.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

On April 11, 2011, the summary of the charge of larceny was stolen by the Defendant, around April 21, 2011, at around 21:00 on April 21, 201, in the course of assaulting the victim in the room of the victim D with the third floor in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, the market price of 2.50,00 foot 14k gold mp, which was suffering from the victim's item, was cut.

Facts of recognition

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged:

On April 11, 2011, while the defendant assaulted D on April 1, 2011, the gold boom, which was suffering from his female's item, was cut, and the half of the gold boomed. The defendant returned that the gold boom, which was set to D, was far away from the balle where the half of the gold balth was contained in D.

The defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender immediately after the assaulting D and went to a police box, and even observed the scene of the assault with K and L, but there is no person who wants the defendant to bring the spawn to a half.

D has completed the statement of the defendant as a witness of the assault case at the police station on the same day, and return to the place where the assault was committed first than the defendant.

Judgment

Even if the defendant did not seem to have caused a string of gold that was cut in the course of assaulting D, it is highly likely that the half of the gold string would have caused a misunderstanding near it, it is possible that the gold string would have been contained in the string because of further intervention of the defendant, D, or a third party's food or intangible act.