The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. On December 1, 2003, the defendant of the grounds of appeal only used T-moneoneoneone card owned by the victim in the vicinity of the place where the victim was stolen, and there was no theft of the victim's wall.

2. In the instant case, there is no direct evidence that conforms to the facts charged, such as the statement of a witness to steals the victim’s wall, etc.

However, the conviction in a criminal trial is not necessarily required to be formed by direct evidence, but can be formed by indirect evidence unless it violates the rules of experience and logic. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value of the crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that does not exist by itself in relation to the whole evidence, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that does not exist by itself in relation to the crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4172 Decided June 27, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4172, Jun. 27, 2013). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the victim was stolen from a wall that was contained in the wall while wearing the wall on the front side of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City on December 1, 2013 [the victim confirmed the wall that there was a broadcast photographing at the time, and confirmed that the wall was located in the wall immediately before the lapse of a large number of people, and that the wall was opened again immediately after the lapse of the wall, and that there was no possibility that the victim was stolen or lost of the wall at another place than the above place (Evidence record 10, 324-325, etc.). The Defendant also made a statement at the same place where the victim was stolen [the fact that the Defendant was also a victim’s photographed at the same time when the victim was stolen [the victim’s statement at around 1314, 2014.