The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the larceny of larceny in the decision of the court below in misunderstanding of facts, the victim considered the victim's her hand as a mobile phone in order to report the victim who was under the influence of alcohol and report it to be dangerous if the defendant continued to do so, but he was aware of it.

Therefore, the defendant does not have the intention of theft and the intention of illegal acquisition.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, and in particular, according to the witness E’s legal statement of a witness E, a police officer who arrested the Defendant as a thief, the Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol, committed an act to confirm the contents of the Defendant’s arrest, following the victim’s her double-domination, and the Defendant’s arrest, including E.

Therefore, the defendant's intention of larceny and illegal acquisition is recognized.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing recognizes the embezzlement of stolen objects among the instant crimes, the Defendant denies the criminal act of larceny due to a vindication contrary to the common sense, the Defendant has the power to be punished for larceny, and in full view of all other circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.