2. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence adopted by the court below and examined by the court below in terms of 2 and 3, i.e., (i) the police officer who investigated the defendant stated in the court of the trial that "it is not accurately memory of the defendant at the time, but is deemed that it was possible to conduct an investigation when considering the circumstances under the investigation or the day of daily work of the party, etc.," and (ii) the witness J of the court of the trial stated to the effect that "the defendant responded without a distance sense when the police asked the defendant to appear because he was dispatched to the scene and asked the defendant to appear," but it appears that it was difficult for the defendant to refuse the investigation only under the understanding that other dynamics present at the time were to cooperate with the police, and (iii) the defendant made it difficult for him to use the handphone which was placed at the "batch lid" in the toilet.

Although there is a change in the police officer, as the victim who operates the police officer calls for a change in opening a bank, the defendant sent his Handphone, and "the Handphone is this ..........................................."

On the other hand, the victim's statement in the court below (the trial record 49,52 pages). In light of the fact that the defendant was guilty of theft, the court below held that the defendant was guilty of theft, even though he was taking the Handphone in his own Handphone, he was placed in the room immediately, and that he was requested to confirm the Handphone from the toilet on several occasions, even though he was requested by the victim of the balthma in the toilet, and that such a balth of the balth of the balth of the balth of the balth of the balth of the body.

The decision is justified.

3...