Defendant

The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant is guilty of the facts of the defendant, and as such, the defendant was only scambling in order to drive away from the dog, there was no intention of larceny and there was no intention of unlawful acquisition.

The forests and fields indicated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act) were not used as an orchard between the last 4 to 5 years, and it constitutes mountainous district because the Defendant was a tree in the above forest and field prior to the cutting-off work.

The defendant and the prosecutor argued that the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles were the same as the grounds for appeal, and the court below rendered a judgment of conviction of larceny and not guilty of violation of the Management of Mountainous Districts, based on each circumstance in the judgment below.

In full view of all the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and all the circumstances in the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

Therefore, each of the defendant and prosecutor's arguments is without merit.

The lower court determined the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, taking into account the value of the damaged goods, whether there was an endeavor to agree, and the Defendant’s punishment history.

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

Considering all the circumstances asserted by the defendant, such as the fact that the value of each material exceeds 4,000 won, the extent of damage has not yet been sustained, the fact that the defendant finds and returns each material late, and that the defendant is old, such circumstance seems to have already been sufficiently considered in the original trial, and that the sentencing conditions mentioned above have been significantly changed in the first instance trial.

It is difficult to see the above sentencing, and when considering the above sentencing as a whole, it cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The conclusion is.