At the main point of the victim E's partnership, he/she drinks with the victim and drinks with the victim at around 05:30 on the same day, while getting a taxi with the victim and getting a taxi, the victim was deprived of the victim's 12 million won or more at the market price of the victim's hand, which was under the influence of alcohol, and cut off 12 million won or more of the compact 2.

2. It is true that there is a little contradiction in the statement of the defendant in the judgment, and there is a face to believe the defendant's oral statement in light of the contents of the statement.

In addition, it is difficult to believe that the defendant's statement F by the former male-gu of the defendant that he was in sight of the victim is also true in light of the contents of the statement.

In addition, the defendant's statements are inconsistent with F.

Therefore, it is true that it is difficult to believe the defendant's words that he received a gift in sight from the victim as they are.

However, in light of the following, even based on all evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is difficult to view that the facts charged in the instant case, which the Defendant stolen the visibility of the victim, was proven without reasonable doubt.

(1) There is no evidence to prove that the defendant brought about the visibility of the victim against the victim's will or brought about the victim.

Even according to all the evidence submitted, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant exceeded the visibility of the victim, such as the facts charged.

There is much possibility that the victim has donated or lent the view to the defendant.

Although the victim could see the defendant differently from his own opinion under the influence of alcohol, even in that case, theft is not established.

(2) It is unclear whether the defendant and the victim leave a taxi along with the main station.

In other words, G's view that the site at the time is the starting point is the starting point.