Each part of the judgment of the first and third court and the judgment of the second court, excluding the compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the theft of the victim Q from mistake of facts (the facts charged in the judgment of the court below of the third instance), the defendant did not have any intention to commit the theft only when he did not return the 50,000 won of the market price to the victim, one cash 300,000 won of the market price, and one hand 1 of the hand 1,50,000 won of the market price to the victim's house, and one of the hand 1,50,000 won of the market price was the victim's house, and the defendant had any intention to commit the theft.

B. Each sentence imposed by each court below on the defendant (Article 1.1.6, 2, and 3.4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. The case of this court 2013No2621, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance, was consolidated in the proceedings for the first instance, which is the case of appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the case of this court 2013No2621, which is the case of appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance, and the case of this court 2013No339, which is the case of appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance. Each of the offenses committed by the judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the extent that aggravating concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, since all of the offenses

(However, even if there are reasons to reverse the judgment of the court below ex officio, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court of this court, and this is also examined). 3. Determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts (as to the judgment of the court of third instance), the defendant was investigated by the first investigation agency, and "one victim's wallet, one cash, 300,000 won, and one half of them did not theft.