The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) that the Defendant had H with the fertilizer being kept in D (ju). However, the said fertilizer is a company separate from R (ju).

The Defendant did not commit a theft of a fertilizer owned by the victim, as stated in the facts charged, which was kept in the judgment of the court below, and was kept in the warehouse of D (State) by J, and again found it again, and was not a fertilizer owned by the victim. Since H obtained the confirmation and approval of D (State) as the actual operator of D (State) at the time H brought the said fertilizer into action, the Defendant did not constitute a theft of a fertilizer owned by the victim as otherwise stated in the facts charged.

2. The lower court determined: (a) requested F to keep the instant indoor fertilizer from F to D (ju) around August 2013, 2013; and (b) became aware of the fact that there was no fertilizer in around May 2014.

The victim’s legal statement in the lower court, 2. The Defendant found fertilizers from F around July 2014.

In addition, there is a money that the defendant has to pay to H, and the defendant has made a statement on the condition that he will pay the fertilizer to H and on the condition that he will pay the debt.

At the end, I requested to assist.

In full view of the I’s legal statement of the lower court, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, K asked H and O directors at the investigative agency and the lower court court’s trial on the following grounds: (i) as K did not have all the fertilizers of this case and asked H and O directors; (ii) the Defendant took a civil and criminal liability and brought the fertilizer to H; and (iii) the Defendant brought the fertilizer into the Republic of Korea.

was made.

At the time, the defendant was responsible for the telephone, and he was aware of it.

There is no fact that the defendant entrusts another fertilizer owned by R to the warehouse of D (State).

The statement "," and ② According to the record of recording submitted by the defendant to an investigative agency, K and the defendant are replaced by the defendant.