The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not steals or use the instant check.

In addition, the location of the instant case appears to be the “365cop” with a separate entrance, which is not the proposal of the head office of the Saemaeul Treasury in the Bupyeong-cheon Central Saemaul. In light of the fact that the date of the instant case can be seen as the time when the Saemaul Treasury manager could not exclusively control due to late night hours, the instant physical card can be viewed as a possession separated from the scope of the control of the victim or the Saemaul Treasury manager, but the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant argued to the same effect as in the trial of the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor in detail.

In full view of the circumstances presented by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of the reasoning of the instant case’s argument and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the record, the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully taking account of all the circumstances, including the various reasons for sentencing alleged by the Defendant, and no special circumstance exists to the extent that the lower court’s punishment is to be changed.

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.