All the judgment below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

The defendant shall be an applicant for compensation.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The victim D’s cell phone-based mobile phone is removed from the Defendant’s cell phone, thereby bringing about mistake of facts.

In addition, the above mobile phone case was not 50,000 won in cash, but only 15,000 won.

B) Attached Table 2 Nos. 2 is the part resolved by the defendant. c) Nos. 1 through 3 of annexed Table 3 is the part resolved by the defendant with P’s consent. d) The year No. 8 of annexed Table 4 of annexed crime sight table 4 is that the defendant has not settled. e) No. 5 of annexed Table 5 of annexed crime sight table 5 sent text messages with P’s consent.

F) No. 9 of the attached list 6 of the crime sight table 9 is P lending, and the year 6 to 8, and 10 were repaid later. G) No. 7 of the annexed list 7 of the crime sight is not memory.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and the second lower judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s Second Instance’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court of the judgment of the court of appeal ex officio held the appeal cases of the first and second original judgments together with the defendant. Since each of the crimes of the defendant's first and second original judgments is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the defendant has to be punished as a single sentence within the term or amount of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court, and the following is considered below.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the victim D’s mobile phone case or material differs from that of the Defendant, and even if based on the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant knew that the aforementioned mobile phone was not one’s own within a soup, soup. The Defendant reported the acquisition of lost objects to the police box, and the Defendant stated the fact that “the mobile phone was shot around the soup station.”