1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 7, 2010, in the theft case, there was a theft case of Yang-gu Love gift certificates of KRW 10,000,000, and as a result, on the police track distribution route, there was a fact that gift certificates were recovered from F, who operated Chinese restaurant D and E in the vicinity of C Station.

B. (i) On September 11, 2010, the police conducted an investigation into F on September 7, 2010, the statement that a male guest had exchanged the said gift certificates in cash to a male guest, and that the male passenger suffered 170 cm for the extension of the 40th first half of the 40th half of the 40th half of the 170cm, as well as the knife white ray, and that the investigation report was prepared on September 10, 2010.

B. On September 11, 2010, the Plaintiff ordered meals in E on September 11, 2010, and this F reported to the police that the Plaintiff exchanged merchandise coupons in D, while the police arrested the Plaintiff.

The police found D’s phone call to H, and followed the investigation report as of September 7, 2010, which was prepared as of September 11, 2010 after hearing the statement that the former and the head of the Gu had observed that the Defendant had been exchanged for gift certificates from F, and the Defendant sent the Plaintiff’s photograph to H using a cell phone. As of the result, the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff’s recipient of gift certificates is the same as that of the Plaintiff’s recipient of gift certificates, and that the clothes and fingers are suitable for their fingers, and the investigation report prepared as of September 12, 2010. The investigation report prepared as of September 12, 2010, the phrase “40 first half of the investigation report as of September 7, 2010,” which was “40 first half of the investigation report as of September 7, 2010, at the same time, the suspect at the same time had been confused with the suspect at the same time, and included in the statement of 50 second half of the statement.

Applicant on September 11, 2010, the Plaintiff stated that he had received meals from the police on September 7, 2010 after being asked to verify whether he had a meal in D, and that he had received meals from F with knowledge of the fact that F was operated together.

The plaintiff's later at the police station.