All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not steal the family account books kept by the victim, as stated in the facts charged, that contain the records of the family register kept by the victim.

Even if the Defendant committed an act as described in the facts charged

Even if there is no presumption or implied consent of the victim, or there is no intention of illegal acquisition, the crime can not be established.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (3 million won) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by providing a detailed statement on the summary of evidence and the “determination on the Defendant’s and defense counsel’s assertion.” In light of the records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. Determination 1 on the wrongful argument of sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor 1) The sentencing is based on statutory penalty, based on a reasonable and appropriate scope, discretionary determination based on the conditions of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has a unique area for the determination of sentencing.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it, and the first instance court’s sentencing is discretionary.