In full view of each of the above evidence and the fuel tank situation report, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant instigated special larceny as stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below 1) E stated different statements from the statement made at an investigative agency as to what he participated in the crime as stated in the facts charged in the court below, and did not specifically state the date and time, place, and the person who received the teacher directly from the defendant. In addition, there is no evidence or evidence supporting E’s statement as to the amount received from the closed oil collection business operator and the distribution process thereof. Therefore, there is insufficient probative value in the protocol stating each statement and its statement in E’s legal and investigative agency’s each statement and its statement are used as evidence supporting the conviction of the facts charged in the instant case. 2) Each of the pertinent parts of E, G’s legal statements, the police officers of the prosecution, the prosecutor’s office, the police officers of the E, G, and H’s each statement made at each of the police officers’ statements or those made at such full statement, and there is no evidence to prove that the statement made by the F under Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act had been made under particularly reliable circumstances.

3. It is reasonable to find the Defendant guilty of the instant charges only with the statement of fuel tank situation report and oil register.