2. The witness E’s statement can be sufficiently recognized as the Defendant’s theft, as described in the facts charged, in full view of the following: (a) the investigative agency from the first instance court to the court of first instance; and (b) the F’s statement, etc., are consistent and consistent.

A. On March 19, 2014, E temporarily resides in the vicinity of Sejong Special Self-Governing City C, and discovered that the cargo vehicle was set up in the above location unlike the flat around 18:30 on March 19, 2014, and the cargo vehicle was loaded in a cover, and there was no one lid at each lid of the main objects located in the front of the above location.

B. Accordingly, E confirmed that the Defendant was able to load the lids above lids in the cargo onto the cargo, and was off the water network, and that the lids in front of the cargo is likely to be loaded in the cargo onto the cargo.

(c)

Since then, E was working as a service employee in the district management in the LH Sejong Special Headquarters compensation division, and the F, which was immediately arrived at the above place, reported to the police, and the Defendant was able to recover from the original lids before the police arrives.

3. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.