The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) did not err by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant stolen the victim F's wallets (hereinafter "the instant wallets"), as stated in the facts charged. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the crime of larceny was established.

2. The following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: ① the victim arranged the instant wall inside the contact office while the defendant was in existence; ② the defendant and the victim left the office to provide physical assistance; ③ the defendant first went back to the office and left the office; ④ the victim again went back to the office after the physical assistance was completed; ⑤ the victim was sent to the cargo owned by the defendant and the victim (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”); ⑤ the victim was placed on the front line of the vehicle and the front line of the vehicle in this case; ② the victim reported the theft of the instant wall to the representative; ② the victim did not have access to the instant vehicle in this case from the time when the police was sent to the office to the close place of the office; ③ the victim did not have access to the vehicle in this case; ④ the victim was found to have known that the victim was out of the office of this case; ② the victim was not inside the office of this case; and the victim was not inside the office of this case to have access to the vehicle in this case.