The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement, because the lower court did not err by misapprehending the fact that the possession did not have the intention of embezzlement of stolen goods.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the victim lost in the underground parking lot of this case (a) the size of the floor of the hand floor (a 20 cm wide, 10 cm high) and the gold-rums (5 cm high) contained in the shopping bags and the gold-rums contained therein, which the victim purchased from the bank of this case on the day of this case, can be seen as a lost object externally, and ② the defendant argued that the victim lost the wheelchairs with the front body and had the front place of his residence, and ③ the defendant did not confirm the contents of the shopping white, but rather, it is difficult to find the reason why the victim would have left the place of separate collection without confirming the contents, and it is also difficult to find that the defendant's dwelling can be separated from the victim's stuff at the time of this case's embezzlement and removal of the above articles in an objective manner without confirming the contents, and the defendant's dwelling can be separated from the victim's dwelling.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so ordered.