The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses of the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not steals the kickboard.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since the defendant was sufficiently recognized that the victim's kick was stolen.

① The victim consistently considered kickboard inside the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant case from the investigative agency to the court of original trial.

“The statement was made.”

② Police officers, upon receiving a report from the victim, called to the scene of the instant case, shall enter the inside of the Defendant’s vehicle, and then determine whether the victim “I wish to go against the Defendant’s body.”

“The question was made.”

“The police officer made a statement, and the police officer considered kickboard inside the Defendant’s vehicle.

The decision is judged.

③ In addition, the police officer found that the victim's kick photo was "after checking the victim's kick photographs, the middle part of the victim's kickboard was red and back, and the kickboard in the defendant's vehicle was similar to this.

“The statement was made.”

④ Taking into account the aforementioned statements made by police officers, the statements made by the victim, the victim kick photographs, and the circumstances in which police officers thought that the victim kick is kick, and submitted as evidence by affixing the object on the Defendant’s vehicle, credibility is found in the statements made by the victim and the police officers.

⑤ If the Defendant had an intention to commit a theft to himself/herself, it was stolen from the onboard, not from the onboard, but from the onboard. If he/she stolen the onboard, he/she did not constitute a horse because he/she stolen the onboard and inspected the onboard.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the defendant's statement, there was a baby carriage or knife around the victim's bank.