The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, when E collected the instant land A from a small wave, the thief crime was already committed, and E collected the instant land A at the Defendant’s bank. In addition, E collected the instant land A from the Defendant’s bank.

On the other hand, the defendant's participation in the theft act or joint relation with E cannot be said to be established.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won of fine for the crime No. 1 in its holding, and six months of imprisonment for the crime No. 2 in its holding) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The judgment of larceny on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is to be taken when the property is transferred to one’s own possession by infringing another’s possession (see Supreme Court Decision 64Do577, Dec. 8, 1964). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the following facts are recognized.

(1) “E” at the police station, “A person was seated in a kertop and was seated in an empty soften, so he was seated on the sof that he was seated by a man, and francing a coffee, and the Defendant, who was smoking, was seated on his side, and then was flaced by the Defendant.

After confirming the content, the Defendant stated that he sent a knish door to the Defendant, thereby inserting the knish, thereby holding the knish and drinking the coffee.

(2) Even by means of CCTV images of the instant car page (Investigation Records No. 11, 12 pages), E discovered the wallets on the part of the instant car page, and then sited into the left hand, and the wall lock is left hand, and E was left hand by looking at the end of the wall, but it was easy for E to easily recognize the wall from the outside because it did not leave the wall due to his body, object, etc.

The defendant saw the defendant's seat on the side.