The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding - The fact-finding of the theft against the victim H as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below - The fact-finding of the defendant's possession of H's cell phone at the date and place specified in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below is inconsistent with the fact-finding, but did not know that H's cell phone case contains 50,000 won in cash, and the fact-finding of H's do not constitute the defendant's occupation spread, and it was merely the fact-finding of H's occupation spread, and it cannot be acknowledged as the intention of theft against the cash 50,000 won and H's occupation spread. However, the judgment below which convicted the defendant

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The Defendant’s assertion and the lower court’s determination also denied the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was guilty on the grounds of appeal and the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was the Defendant’s 50,000 won in cash and H’s occupation theft in the criminal facts No. 4 of the same crime as indicated in the lower judgment, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the evidence duly admitted and investigated was

Comprehensively taking account of the victim’s consistent statement that the above mobile phone case included cash, the victim’s other articles (driving license, etc.) of the victim in the above mobile phone case are discovered in the telecom suspension line, the process and place where the victim was discovered, and the defendant was suffering from his own source at the time of arrest of the date of the crime of this case, it can be sufficiently recognized that there was a theft of the above cash and the intent of the defendant to steal the victim’s spread.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence set forth in the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, i.e., the Defendant stated that H’s cell phone was used to verify the time, but did not open the aforementioned cell phone.