The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not sell the F, and F was a middle control soldier who stolen the oil from the Defendant’s oil tank.

(In light of the following circumstances, i.e., witnessing on the spot and photographing video images, the Defendant’s change in the body of the Defendant was difficult to accept, and the Defendant did not file a complaint by larceny, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant driven a portable motor vehicle for movement containing oil, parked on the side of F, and parked in F, and the Defendant sold dump trucks by allowing F to share a dump truck from the above dump truck, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; (b) the Defendant’s change in the body of the Defendant was difficult to accept; and (c) the Defendant did not file a complaint by larceny; and (d) the lower court determined that the Defendant sold dump trucks by allowing F to share the dump truck from the above dump truck.

A thorough review of the records of this case reveals that the circumstances presented by the court below are just and acceptable. In other words, the defendant's defense counsel is against the rule of experience by itself that the defendant stolen his own oil despite the principal's presence, and the defendant does not provide reasonable explanation of the reasons why he parked on the side of his dump truck, and the attitude of the defendant and F does not coincide with the defendant's defense after the enforcement of the defendant's defense. In light of the following circumstances, the defendant's defense counsel can be sufficiently recognized and there is no error of law by mistake of facts, such as the defendant's assertion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit.