A. In fact, the defendant did not have any fact that he was placed in the victim E, who was not a victim E, transferred the transit to the defendant's Bosch Rexton vehicle.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the charged facts of this case guilty is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant alleged the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the judgment in detail.

Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was any error affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

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

G and H have shown clearly and consistently that the defendant had been present to move the light oil which the defendant was placed in the line to the defendant's vehicle.

In particular, G statements that the Defendant 2-3 times moved through the above, and two persons are likely to witness the Defendant’s criminal scene on different days, and the investigation was started after a considerable period of time from the date of the instant crime, it is difficult to view that even if there is a somewhat different difference in the mutual statement about the circumstances, it is difficult to suspect the credibility of the two persons’ statements.

B. G made a statement to the victim immediately after witnessing the Defendant’s crime, and the victim made a statement to the same effect and supported the victim’s statement.

It may be suspected that the victim has conspiredd in advance to make false statements with G and H.