A. On December 2, 2012, the Defendant purchased scooter in relation to the theft part of around scooter.

② On September 9, 2017, in relation to the part of bodily injury, assault, and special assault, the Defendant did not look at the victim O or I, and only took the back part of the victim N once, and did not cause injury by assaulting the victim N as stated in the judgment of the court below.

③ On November 11, 2017, in relation to the larceny portion, the injured party was scheduled to set the goods not used by the accused in front of the convenience store, and the injured party was considered to have brought about the goods which have been abandoned on the route. Therefore, there was no intention of theft.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on December 2, 2012, 2012, the victim was stolen of scooters from the E cafeteria parking lot located in the wife population D on December 2, 2012.

The reported facts are recognized that the dwelling of the defendant is the same as the 50CC Scoo, when the defendant was on board, and the dwelling of the defendant was near the stolen place and that the number plate was not attached to the scoo at the time when the defendant was on board, and the defendant's statement on the process of the purchase of scoo is hard to believe because it has been reversed several times.

In full view of the above circumstances, the defendant can be found to have stolen the scooter.

The defendant's assertion that this part of the facts is erroneous is rejected.

2) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court of an injury, assault, or special assault on September 9, 2017 is acknowledged according to the testimony of the victims with credibility, especially in accordance with specific and mutual standards.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

3) On November 11, 2017, the lower court duly adopted and investigated the larceny case.