The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty, even though there was no theft of the instant vehicle from the G that tried to conduct an on-site visit with the G that tried to provide a chain store business, etc. at the time of the crime described in the facts charged of this case, there was an error of mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts. As to this, the lower court did not reveal the following facts: (i) the Defendant installed a PES device on the instant vehicle while running a personal siren business; (ii) the Defendant recovered the instant vehicle by using it; and (iii) the Defendant reported false theft with the key of the instant vehicle at the time; (iii) the Defendant was visiting Gangnam-si on the day following the date of the instant report on theft; and (iv) the Defendant was in the direction of Gangnam-si in which the instant vehicle was parked; and (iv) the Defendant did not reveal the economic ability to conduct a business; and (v) the Defendant was unable to verify the details of the ice store that the Defendant visited the Defendant on the date of the instant report on theft; and (v) the process and circumstances leading up to the reversal of the instant vehicle that the Defendant was unable to return from the Seoul investigative agency to the point of view that it was difficult to confirm the vehicle number on the day of the instant report.