The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In collusion with C and E, there is no fact that the defendant misleads the gist of the grounds for appeal by combining the victim D's property.

In addition, there is no fact that the defendant, in collusion with the above C and E, steals the property of the victim's national bank by using the credit card of the victim D, and made the information processed without authority into the information processing device.

The confessions made by the accused in the investigative agency and the court of original instance is only a false confession. The punishment of the court below's unfair sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, ① the Defendant was aware of the victim D’s bank account password for each of the crimes of this case in the prosecutor’s office and the lower court’s court

C was under the prescription for exemption from water.

E was introduced to, and was going to Seoul in, the day before the crime was committed, as well as C and E, and called to C in the PC room around the place where the crime was committed on the day of the crime, and called to C in the process of the crime, whether the victim was drinking;

Does Doz. Doz.

‘A close contact with C and cellular phone, such as questioning and checking the progress;

All the facts charged of this case, including the statement, were led to confessions of all the facts charged of this case, and the statement was made to the effect that it conforms to the confessions made by the defendant, as well as the investigation agency, and the trial court of the party also stated to the effect that C is consistent with the above confessions by the defendant. ③ The police police of the Do, upon the request of the defendant, again requested that the defendant be exempted from the number of the charges of this case, prescribed the drug of this case ("stroke 3 notice" which contains the "stroke stroke m" which is designated as a local mental medicine), and was "stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke s No. d).