2. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the above argument. The circumstances acknowledged by the court below, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, i., ① the victim's "the defendant brought on the victim's wall" requested a telephone call to the defendant's day who was on the next table, and called the defendant's day table, ② the defendant called the victim's speech, ② the defendant called the victim's speech, ② the defendant called the victim's "defabababababababab", ③ the defendant's Kabababa, and the defendant found the victim's house at the location of the CCTV, ④ the defendant's credit card on the victim's wall was put into the victim's wall, and then the victim's wall was placed in the back section with the victim's resident registration certificate attached to the victim's wall.

In addition, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's ground of appeal is not persuasive, but is inconsistent with the victim's statement that there was 2.10,000 won within the above wall, because the above article was not received as a lost article by the South Docheon Postal Office having jurisdiction over the above box, and 5. The defendant's ground of appeal that the defendant's ground of appeal that the defendant's ground of appeal against the defendant's ground of appeal against the defendant's ground of appeal against the defendant's ground of appeal against this error is inconsistent with the victim's statement that there was 2.10,00 won within the above ground of appeal.