The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the defendant cited the victim's mobile phone and cited it as the victim's mobile phone. However, it is merely the fact that the victim's mobile phone is seen as the defendant's mobile phone and there is no intention to larceny against the defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment, additional collection of two hundred and twenty-five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, since the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact of theft with one cellular phone owned by the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① At the time of interrogation of the fourth suspect, the Defendant made a statement that “I (victim) shouldered in philophones to report the lower time, so I need to have a cell phone of H, and thus, recognized this part of the facts charged.”

(No. 512 of the Evidence Records). (2) The Defendant stated in an investigative agency and this court that he was aware of the death of the victim only when he was arrested on July 5, 2019 due to gross negligence or death or injury on the part of the victim. (3) The Defendant’s cell phone from the victim was a new wall on June 13, 2019.

(Evidence Records No. 435, the trial records No. 435, Dec. 17, 2019). If the defendant was aware of the victim's report and did not come out with the victim's cell phone, but rather, he/she used the victim's cell phone by citing the victim's cell phone as the defendant's assertion, it is general to attempt to return the victim's cell phone from June 13, 2019 to July 5, 2019, and the defendant is over the aforesaid 20-day period.