The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not steals a bicycle as stated in paragraph 2 of the 2016 High Order 2628, ruling.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the original court and the appellate court’s method of assessing the credibility of a witness’s statement in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined in the original judgment, the lower court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in determining the credibility of the witness’s statement in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined in the original judgment.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the lower court’s judgment as to the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the lower court is clearly unfair, or comprehensively considering the results of the examination of evidence at the lower court and the results of additional examination conducted until the closing of oral argument at the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the lower court’s judgment on the sole ground that the lower court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the lower court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006; 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). Although the Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, the lower court asserted that there is credibility in the E’s statement.

Accordingly, the defendant's assertion was rejected.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts affecting the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. Although the scope of damage to the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing is relatively small, some damage items have been recovered to a considerable extent, such as return, but the defendant can have the same criminal history.