The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

, however, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged of mistake of facts, each of the larcenys listed in paragraphs (1) and (8) does not mean that the Defendant had no intention to larceny, and each of the larcenys listed in Articles 2, 5, 6, and (7) of the facts charged is not constituted larceny, since the Defendant made a payment in advance by using a weather container or card.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the content of the first instance judgment regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, unless there exist special circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time the argument was concluded, the appellate court may not reverse the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do21537, Mar. 29, 2018). Defendant asserted to the same effect as the aforementioned assertion of mistake of facts in the lower court.

The court below testified that the victim suffered the same damage as the stated in the facts charged in the court below. The victim's testimony is consistent with the main part in comparison with the victim's statement in the investigation agency, consistent with it, and without contradiction in light of the context before and after the statement, and the victim testified that "the amount of settlement and inventory did not coincide with the original amount of settlement and inventory," but later changed the testimony again.