The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, in front of the next house, led to the mistake of the substitute compensationer on his own, and there was no intention to larceny.

(M) In addition, the punishment of a fine of KRW 500,00 as determined by the court below is too unreasonable.

(F) Determination; 2. Determination

A. According to the results of the CCTV video recording recording as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant changed the direction of the defendant's home compensation in front of the next house by selecting him and changing the direction to the front of his office, and the office door at the time was opened, but the defendant stated in the court below that he opened a door even in the ordinary court, and that he opened a door in the ordinary court;

The defendant returned to the place of a person who is responsible for selective compensation before him, and returned to the place of a slide, and returned to the place of a slide, and returned to the place of a slide, and the fact that the defendant walked in front of a person who is responsible for selective compensation, and the other defendant at a corner was found to have entered the office by taking back the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and right

In addition to the circumstances cited by the lower court, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances derived from the Defendant’s attitude of behavior, the Defendant can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, even though he was not his own, brought the Defendant to know that he did not want to obtain it.

1. If the defendant was aware that he was the one's own, he would immediately leave the other's office by gathering it, and he would have left the office without collecting it, and there is no reason to leave the office again and return from the corridor.

② The Defendant was placed in front of the office of the Defendant, not the office of the Defendant. Moreover, the Defendant opened the door door and opened the door door so that he can immediately respond to the visit of the home officer in the office.

Therefore, it is objective to see that it is his choice line in front of the next house.