The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Items 1 through 9, 11, 15, of seized evidence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the guilty part in the original judgment) did not commit larceny on June 16, 2013. Nevertheless, the lower court recognized that the Defendant committed the crime by indirect evidence alone and sentenced the Defendant guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the outcome of the crime. 2) Considering the amount of damage on the instant case of unfair sentencing, etc., the lower court’s punishment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts (the acquittal portion of reasons in the original trial), the court below acquitted each of the above crimes on the ground that the defendant could have committed each larceny on May 21, 2013, on the ground that it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the outcome of the crime. 2) In light of the overall circumstances of the case of unfair sentencing, the court below's punishment (three years of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the formation of conviction is not necessarily required to be formed by direct evidence, but can be based on indirect evidence, indirect evidence should not be individually or separately assessed, and indirect evidence should not be assessed individually or separately, and should be assessed in a comprehensive manner in relation to each other in all respects, and must be evaluated in a close and contradictory manner.

Although the probative value of evidence is left to the free judgment of judges, it should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it does not require any possible doubt, and it is recognized as having probative value.