The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that he sold the refined products purchased without the intention or ability to repay the price A and B, and thus, the Defendant did not have the intention to acquire stolen products.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, who made a judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, led to the confession of facts in the judgment of the court below, but denies it by the reversal of the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, according to the records, the defendant's credibility of a confession made in the court of the court below cannot be found to be objectively unreasonable or contradictory to the circumstances other than the confession, and there was a situation where the defendant only suspected of having no voluntariness of confession due to the reasons prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or to have a reasonable doubt in the motive or process of confession.

There is no evidence to determine the person.

Therefore, there is credibility that confessions made in the court of the court below by the defendant are consistent with the truth.

It is reasonable to view it.

In addition, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is sufficient in light of the following circumstances, i.e., in light of the fact that the Plaintiff acquired a large quantity of refined meat products at a price lower than the wholesale price, and the Defendant sold them at a price lower than the unit price supplied to the Defendant immediately after being supplied by another company, and the Defendant seems to have been aware of this fact from the date of committing the crime as stated in the facts charged, evidence supporting the Defendant’s confession is sufficient.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

3. The size of the stolens that acquired judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing is significant.