The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal asserts that the Defendant did not know that the signboards B brought about were stolen, and thus, there was no intention to transport stolen goods, but otherwise, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On August 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) knew on August 22, 2014, the facts charged in the instant case, around 22:30, that “F” and “G” were stolen and transported stolen signboards that B stolen on the roads in front of “G”, and (b) transported stolen goods from the place to the back of the IMO car owned by the Defendant to the point to which the Defendant operated the Defendant.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

C. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant planned to set up a standing signboard at the entrance of the above telecom before the occurrence of the case, but failed to immediately manufacture the standing signboard due to the estimate, etc. in order to solve the problem of parking with the next telecom at the time of the Defendant’s fishing operation, ② the Defendant’s standing signboard was stolen by the Defendant, and ② it appears that the Defendant was able to have been forced to bring the standing signboard up on the back of the car without a ditch, but the Defendant was able to have no choice but to bring the standing signboard up on the back of the car. However, according to the CCTV image that was set up at the point of the Defendant’s operation, the Defendant was able to take account of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was driving from the beginning of the case to the point of time from the start of the car to the start of the car, and (b) the Defendant was able to bring the standing signboard up to the start of the car, and (c) the Defendant was 20 minutes.