The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (No. 2013No695) did not correspond to the instant restaurant on the day of the instant crime, nor did the Defendant stolen the goods owned by the victim, and had engaged in computer games at the time of the instant crime.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and 2 months: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of ex officio determination, the first and second court rendered ex officio the judgment to the Defendant and subsequently sentenced the Defendant to the above punishment, and the Defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgment, and the court below decided to hold concurrent hearings. The first and second crimes of the court below against the Defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and must be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below first and second cannot be exempted from reversal.

(However, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined separately below).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts (in particular, according to the on-site identification report, notification of the actual status of the person corresponding to the results of comparison with DNA-DB, seizure report (site), inquiry inquiry inquiry inquiry reply (NCF)), the defendant can be found guilty of all the charges of this case, including the fact that the defendant invaded into the restaurant of this case on February 4, 2013 and stolen the No. 1 emergency warning, etc., owned by the victim, etc. on or around February 4, 2013.

3. If so, the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that there is a ground for ex officio reversal as seen above, the judgment of the court below is all the judgment of the court below pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without omitting the judgment on