The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the grounds delineated in the misapprehension of the legal principles or misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

1) E Oba (hereinafter “Obabab in this case”) is a thing which has been left abandoned near the Defendant’s residence for a long time, and the Defendant: (a) the owner of the instant Obababa in this case renounced ownership; (b) misleads the owner of the instant Obaba as an unclaimed thing; and (c) removed the number plate, so there was no intention to larceny.

2) Since the Defendant misleads the Defendant that the number plate of this case was attached to and operated on the Defendant’s Obane, it does not constitute a crime. As such, the Defendant is not liable to commit an unlawful use of official marks or an unlawful exercise of air defense as it constitutes an error of law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

B. The defendant guilty for an unfair sentencing

Even if the court below's sentence (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. (1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant had the intention of larcenying the number plate of this case, even if the Defendant had failed to do so for the following reasons:

It is reasonable to view it.

This part of the factual misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the legal principles is without merit.

A) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, at the time when the Defendant removed a number plate from the Oratob in this case, the fact that the Defendant was neglected for a long time at approximately 20 meters away from the Ulsan-dong C building living in Ulsan-gu, where the Defendant was living, due to the malfunction of the Orabab in this case is recognized.

B) However, although Oralone is movable property, regardless of the exhaustable volume, it falls under “motor vehicle” as stipulated in Article 3 subparag. 5 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Motor Vehicle Management Act [Attachment 1] and the acquisition and loss of ownership is in accordance with Article 6 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act.