The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The defendant's summary of the grounds for appeal does not constitute a theft of DNA error.

The defendant secured the visibility to D, and the defendant was issued the Obaon in this case from D with the consideration of the visual price.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. There is a statement at D’s investigative agency and court of the original instance as direct evidence that conforms to the facts charged in the instant case.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court, it is sufficient that the statement of D, which the Defendant committed a theft of the instant Obane, was sufficiently reliable.

It is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt about the facts charged in this case.

It is difficult to see it.

The defendant's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

① At the time of the Defendant’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’s d’’

statement is made.

However, it is very rare that the owner and witness have stolen another person's ozone part while being observed in the vicinity is a method of theft.

(2) The DNA statements about the theft situation are inconsistent.

On November 5, 2009, D stated that the time of crime was around 8:00 p.m. at the time of the first report, but on January 7, 2010, D stated that the time of crime was between 3:0 p.m. and 4:0 p.m.

In addition, during the police investigation on January 7, 2010, the defendant confirmed that he has stolen the above Otoba while she has set up the above Otoba in the vicinity, and then immediately from the defendant.