The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles have taken a bath at the time and place stated in the facts charged of the instant case, and there is no possibility of theft of money from the victims. Even when examining all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, there is no direct evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s act of theft and only indirect circumstantial evidence is nothing more than indirect circumstantial evidence.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to probative value, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the defendant is guilty of an unreasonable sentencing, the sentence imposed by the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In a criminal trial, the probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free evaluation, but such determination must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial does not require it to an extent that there is no reasonable doubt, but does not require it to be excluded from all possible suspicions that have no probative value, and rejection of evidence suspected of having probative value without reasonable grounds goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. In addition, criminal facts are not necessarily required to be proven only by direct evidence, but it can be deemed as indirect evidence consistent with logical and empirical rules. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value of criminal facts, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that cannot be found independently if comprehensive examination of all evidence is conducted under mutual relation with each other (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do1783, Nov. 13, 1998).