2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as CCTV images installed in the station station at the time of judgment, testimony of the victim B, etc., the victim left the subway station platform which was immediately waiting for subway, and left the subway station as they were left. At the time, the victim was the defendant in the vicinity of the victim at the time, the defendant was the defendant, and the defendant was placed in the platform, and there was anything that can be seen as a damaged article in the front of the shoulder, and considering the shape, color, size, etc. of the article that the defendant put in the front machine is different from his/her pocket book claimed by the defendant.

In addition, in light of the behavior of general passengers using subway lines, the defendant's actions in subway stations at the time and the same line are very infinite nature, and it is difficult to view the defendant's activities to use toilets as alleged by the defendant.

In full view of these circumstances and various circumstances presented by the court below, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since it is recognized that the defendant has embezzled the victim's stolen wall.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.