The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below convicted the Defendant of mistake of facts at the two risk trees of this case, but the Defendant knew at the two risk trees naturally in a river embankment and was not so remote, with the knowledge that he was the victim’s ownership. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 300,000) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the intention of larceny may be deemed to be the awareness and intention of theft of another person's property possessed by another person. This is not necessarily required to be the direct intention, but it is sufficient to dolusent intent. On the other hand, the perception of the identity of another person is also the content of the intentional act, and it is sufficient if there is an imminent perception as a satis. 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly investigated by the lower court and the trial court, namely, ① the Defendant was raised at a large range, not at the two places, but at the bottom of the satise. ② The Defendant was raised with a satise at the bottom of the satise road. ② In full view of the management status of two trees at the risk of the instant two places around the satise road, the lower court’s determination that there was no error in the misapprehension of the facts charged by the Defendant.

나. 양형부당 주장에 대하여 피고인은 피해자가 피고인에게 자신의 두릅을 땄다고 항의하자 그 자리에서 즉시 피해자에게 두릅을 반환하고 사과한 점, 위...