The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant was aware of the victim's right to wrong 15 times as the defendant and did not have the intention to collect the cosmetic from the victim, and that there was no intention to steals another's property.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have mistakenly committed the instant crime as the Defendant’s 15th act at the time of committing the instant crime, and the Defendant may be deemed to have committed an intentional act that steals another’s property.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

① A Co., Ltd. D (hereinafter “D”) to which the Defendant and the victim belonged, sold cosmetics under the name of “G” in multi-stage manner, and had its employees use 60 objects of the Sari Center.

Members use 30,000 won to the head of the center and return 15,000 won when they return it.

On the other hand, the key of the object box is kept by the employer and the head of the center each.

(2) At the time, the Defendant appears to have used multiple things, and the Defendant first stated that he was using seven things (No. 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 41, 56) thereafter (No. 9, 16).

(3) It is not a matter of ordinary way to mislead a person into thinking another person's right and wrong. In this regard, the defendant discovered a number on the wind to lose the keys of the person's control at the time. From the end of February 2015 to the beginning of March 2015, the defendant stated that he restored two keyss of the person's key and 14, 15.

(35,36 pages of investigation records). However, the defendant stated that the head of the center does not keep the preliminary key to the object separately (a suspect interrogation protocol of the police once) and there is no key to copy.