The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. On February 7, 2012, the Defendant did not steals one of the “cambling Madrid” and one of the “spambling Madide” at the point of sending E, and on February 16, 2012, the Defendant did not steals food and 11 of the fruits, such as canned “bambts” at the same place.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court at the lower court on February 7, 2012, the fact that the Defendant thefted one of the “spams” and “spams” at the E transmission store on February 7, 2012 can be sufficiently recognized.

F was informed on February 7, 2012 that he stolen goods from customers, and confirmed CCTV images of the relevant time. The CCTV used the brush containing the goods and turned back to the brush, and the Defendant was recorded on the brush, the brush of the brush of the brush of the brush of the brush of the brush, and the brush of the brush of the brush of the Defendant, and the brush of the brush of the brush of the brush of the Defendant.

G listening to the fact that she stolen the goods from F on February 7, 2012, G confirmed CCTV images, and the above CCTV turned back to the food display unit by the Defendant, which cannot be seen as CCTV, and the product in she was in the front part of the pole before the Defendant entered the lower part of the pole. Since then, the Defendant was in the front part of the pole and there was a video recording of the front part of the box that the Defendant was inside his bank and out of the above store.

On February 7, 2012, and February 14, 2012, when the Defendant visited E stores, the Defendant worn the same roof and bags. On February 14, 2012, the Defendant discovered “spam Madrid” and “spbook Mad” sold within E within the Defendant’s bank, and there was no fact that the said articles were settled at E stores.

The defendant shall store the above goods at other stores or E branches.