The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven months.

The seized bicycle 1 unit (Evidence 6), electric kick Code.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (the part on the cellular phone when galloning gallon) among the damaged goods No. 2 of the attached Table No. 2 of the original judgment, the Defendant has the same criminal power, and there is sufficient motive to make a false statement to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant stolen the victim J’s cellular phone. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (eight months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to “one cellular phone part at galgal gallon,” among the damaged goods No. 2 of the attached Table No. 2 in the judgment of the court below regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

1 The injured party J was aware that the investigative agency around April 18, 2018, "05:40 on the work route adjacent to the building, leaving an empty gambling house and leaving a cell phone at the locked time, and did not bring any she to the office.

“Written Statement” (Evidence No. 172 pages) is insufficient to support this part of the facts charged in that it was not a witness of a theft of a mobile phone directly.

2 The Defendant asserted that he was engaged in collection of historical materials, abolition, etc., and only has been engaged in transportation cards displayed in mobile phone cases and cases, but does not steal mobile phones. Thus, the Defendant’s statement as seen earlier is the victim J.