The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since there is no article found by the defendant's customer who had operated a mistake of facts, it was a practice to sell goods by going to the next place when there is no article to be found by the customer, and at the time, the defendant brought to the employee by going to the employee, and the employee did not hear the horses of the defendant, the defendant's act does not constitute larceny.

B. The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim C stated that “A, the owner of the vehicle adjacent to theCCTV, entered the warehouse, and reported immediately to 112 by deeming A to contain materials from her inside and outside of the warehouse, at a distance of two dials and two dials, and within the bank (in case of video of 14 pages),” (ii) the CCTV photograph (in case of video of 12 pages of investigation record), the fact that the Defendant was placed in a face-to-face and her back, and ③ the Defendant also stated that “A was brought without talking about by her point of view,” etc. in light of the fact that: (i) the facts charged of this case is sufficiently convicted.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. As to the assertion on unreasonable sentencing, the circumstances are as follows: (a) the Defendant reimburses the victim of the amount of damage and agreed not to punish the victim; and (b) the Defendant reflects the Defendant.

However, since the defendant has already been guilty of suspended sentence, the suspended sentence that the defendant wants is legally impossible (the proviso of Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act), and the judgment of the court below is already favorable to the defendant.