A. In light of the fact that the Defendant: (a) was working for approximately one year at the Lee Gon Center operated by the victim, and used the instant cargo vehicle for commuting to and from work; (b) the key of the said vehicle was stored in a place where the Defendant easily accessible; and (c) the Defendant was working at the Lee Gon Center on the following day of the instant case, the victim generally permitted the Defendant to use the said cargo vehicle without permission or relevance to the business to keep the keys of the instant cargo vehicle.

Since it is reasonable to see that the defendant did not have the intention of theft.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged to the same purport in the lower court’s argument, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s argument by finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and its reasoning, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts in the lower judgment, which affected the conclusion

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. In light of the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable even if there is no change in circumstances that may consider the sentencing after the lower judgment on the part of the lower judgment, and the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case are considered.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.