In relation to the crime against the victim D, the defendant takes cash and cellular phone from the bank of D.

There is no fact that there is nothing between them.

With respect to the crime against the victim G, the defendant was found to have set aside the wall from the wall of G to the 400,000 won from the wall of G to the 400,000 won, while the wall was put in the seat of the Gu, and the wall was set away from the side of G.

There is no fact that there is nothing between them.

Defendant who had been

400,000 won is the money borrowed from S, the defendant's seat.

The sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below related to the crime against the victim C as to the allegation of mistake of the facts as to the grounds for appeal, the defendant was on the right side of C.

C It can be recognized that the Defendant moved the foregoing articles under his control, by gathering the cellular phone and wallets and leading them to the direction of the building located in the neighborhood.

As can be seen, the number of larceny is established.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court related to the crime against the victim D, D was under the influence of alcohol at the place specified in paragraph (2) of the crime committed in the lower judgment between 1:00 p.m. and 3:0 p.m. on August 17, 2016, and D was installed on the place where D was under the influence of alcohol.

CCTV does not take the location of CCTV, but the defendant gets a bicycle immediately after the place where the defendant 02:40 gets a bicycle and gets a bicycle, going back in the direction of D, and walked in the direction of building a bicycle after diving.