The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Since the defendant was unaware of the fact that he had been displayed in the gambling room in the shopping car, he did not know that he had any remaining alcoholic beverage, he did not have the intention of larceny.

Judgment

The court below also asserted the same purport, and the court below held that ① the shopping car operated by the defendant was sealed by the defendant to facilitate the operation of the shopping car, including 11.7 km and 6.2 km containing 17 g alcoholic beverages, so it would have sufficiently known the difference if the defendant runs the shopping car in the general public due to the difference between the empty car and the weight contained in the empty car, and ② the defendant seems to have been pushed off the shopping car after the passage of the warehouse only when the large cost of calculation would not be seen as the large cost of calculation, in light of the fact that the defendant was not able to make it easier for the defendant to drive the shopping car, but it is difficult to say that the defendant was not able to change the direction of the commercial car immediately before the entry into the large cost of calculation, and that the defendant was not able to change the direction of the commercial car in the above case.