The lower court’s determination on the assertion that the sentencing was erroneous, i.e., an employee of K office, who had been an employee of K office

V At the police and the court of the court below, the defendant was given witness to put the defendant into the bar of the Myanmar-type mobile phone in the bar and to throw away the Myanmar-type mobile phone after the defendant turned into the bar of the main toilet.

The statement was made, and its contents are concrete and consistent, and the contents are also reliable. ② On the other hand, the defendant has stolen another person's mobile phone from the victim's L's mobile phone and has been abandoned after the change of the toilet used by the defendant.

The Defendant asserts that there is an urgent need for the Defendant to file a lawsuit.

corporation entered the toilet; and

In light of the fact that there is no possibility that another person would have come to a misunderstanding, and that there is little possibility that another person would have come to a misunderstanding, as argued by the defendant, the defendant was found to have stolen the victim's Handphones. In light of the fact that the defendant stolen the victim's Handphones.

In full view of all the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The judgment of the court below on the wrongful argument of sentencing is that the victim of the crime of fraud is majority, the sum of damage is not significant, the defendant was punished by a fine for the same kind of crime (the crime of fraud and bodily injury), the defendant stolen the victim's Handphone, but the above victim was false, and the motive of the crime of assault is bad, and the defendant did not deny and reflect the crime of larceny by using violence.