The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to CCTV images taken up at the scene of the instant crime and the statements made at the investigation agency of D, etc., the Defendant is fully aware of the fact that D was able to share the thief by gathering the victim’s mobile phone located on the table of the victim, and the Defendant and D did not deviate from the victim’s table, in a situation where D used to gather the victim’s mobile phone, and the Defendant and D used to gather the mobile phone from D and run the Defendant’s mobile phone at a time and at a place where D used to commit the thief in cooperation with D at a time and place.

Even if so, the Defendant shared the thief act

The court below found the defendant not guilty of special larceny for lack of evidence to determine the person, and found the defendant guilty of the crime as a joint principal offender of larceny, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (amounting to KRW 5,000,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the lower judgment’s acquittal portion is as follows: (a) on April 19, 2017, the Defendant: (b) around 02:44, while drinking alcohol at the F main points in Gwangju Dong-gu, Gwangju, G, the victim G, the next terable customer, dance, and the victim’s 1 million won in the market price on the table.

The Defendant, together with D, stolen the cell phone of the victim.

B. In order to establish a special larceny in a case where two or more persons of the latter part of Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act jointly commit a theft of another person’s property, there should be a sharing of an act of conspiracy as a subjective element and an objective requirement, and the act of implementation requires a cooperative relationship at a time and at a place of time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do313, Mar. 22, 1996). In light of the above legal principle, the health unit in the instant case and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor are crimes.