The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An applicant for a compensation order shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The 2nd mold of this case, which the Defendant had a misunderstanding of facts bring about E, was not a property owned by C, but a property owned by C.

Even if the defendant thought it as a thing that has been abandoned at the time, there was no intention to larceny.

B. Even if the charge of this case is found guilty, the sentence of the lower court (1 million won) is too unreasonable, even if it is found that the charge of this case is found guilty.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the witness F of the lower court, who carried out the removal work of the mold of this case, stated in the lower court’s court that “A witness F was stored in one side separately from waste,” and that “C was unable to carry out the removal work of the interior walls at the time, and confirmed the fact that there was no creative framework from F, and reported theft to the police, and the shape and condition of the mold of this case, etc., the mold of this case was owned by C, the principal property of the building, which was sufficiently valuable property, and the Defendant was also aware that the mold of this case was the property owned by C, while he was also taking advantage of the recognition that the mold of this case was the property owned by C.

may be appointed by a person.

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

B. In full view of the following facts: (a) it is difficult for the Defendant to find out the reflective color of the Defendant, such as denying the Defendant’s criminal act; (b) the Defendant has been subject to criminal punishment several times including the same kind of criminal record; and (c) the Defendant’s motive and method of the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant’s career, age, and sexual conduct, and all the circumstances leading to the argument and record, the sentence of the lower court is deemed appropriate, and thus, the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is also groundless

3. Article 26 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits for Determination of Applications for Compensation Orders.