The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit a theft as stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case.

Nevertheless, the lower court found all of the charges of this case guilty, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Recognition of guilt in a criminal trial should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no evidence to form a conviction to such an extent, the doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no evidence to establish such a conviction.

Even though it is inevitable to judge the defendant's interest as a direct evidence, it is not necessarily required to be formed by direct evidence, but it is formed by indirect evidence as long as it does not violate the rules of experience and logic. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value of crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that it is not independent if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that can not be established independently if comprehensive consideration of all evidence is conducted in relation to each other.

(2) The Majority Opinion argues that the Majority Opinion’s conclusion of the judgment that found the Defendant guilty on September 13, 2004 constitutes a crime of violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and that the Majority Opinion’s conclusion of the judgment that found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant was guilty on the ground that the Defendant was guilty on the ground that the Defendant was guilty on the ground that the Defendant was guilty on the ground that the Defendant was guilty on the ground that the Defendant was guilty on the ground that the Defendant did not have any reasonable doubt.