The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to find the principal, the Defendant was merely bringing a wall on the wall in order to identify him and did not bring him to the intention of theft.

B. The sentence (200,000 won of fine) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the defendant made a statement at the court below to the effect that the crime of this case is recognized, in order to find the main body of the wall A, which was on the cash withdrawal machine, there is no reason to give notice to the bank immediately next thereto, and in order to find out the main body of the wall A, the defendant's change in the position that the wall was lost because the wall B was put into the main body and confirmed it, and the defendant's change in the position that it was difficult to obtain the wall merely due to lack of rationality, can be sufficiently recognized. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The fact that the Defendant denies the instant crime by a vindication that is difficult to obtain the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is a primary offender who has no record of criminal punishment up to now, and the crime of this case constitutes the larceny of neglected objects, and thus, the nature of the crime is relatively minor compared to the ordinary larceny, the damage therefrom is relatively minor, and the defendant is a beneficiary under the National Basic Living Security Act and a person with disabilities of class 4 in delay.

In full view of the above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments in this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the court below is too vague.