The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant had no intention to steal because the defendant misleads the defendant as to the omission of the chemicalization of this case.

However, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case on the ground that, based on the evidence at the time of the judgment, the victim was aground on the front side of the sidewalk in order to meet the costs of the fire that he saw the fire that he saw in front of the fire that he saw the fire, and the above powder seems to have improved the situation, and the Defendant was aware that he was frightd with the victim, and he was friendly with the victim, and thus, he was friendly with the victim, which led to the above chemicalization, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case on the ground that, in full view of this, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the intention to commit a theft.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the above decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of misconception of the facts alleged by the defendant.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.