The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, despite the absence of cash in the case where the defendant was unable to wear the victim's wall, is improper.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as a bus driver operating the daily passenger bus, operated a bus number C (D) with the route number of the daily passenger from around 15:00 on February 24, 2013 to around 15:31 on the same day.

At around 15:31 on the same day, the Defendant left the possession of the victim E in the above bus parked on the passenger garage of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Eunpyeong-dong 36th, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, and embezzled 6.50,000 won in cash from the wall on the bus owned by the victim and embezzled it in a manner that does not arbitrarily deducted it to return it to the victim.

3. In light of the principle of court-oriented trial and the principle of direct examination, in light of the contents of the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence duly examined in the court of first instance, if there are special circumstances to deem that the judgment of the court of first instance on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the court of first instance was clearly erroneous, or if it is not exceptional cases where maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the court of first instance is deemed remarkably unfair considering the result of the first instance and the result of additional evidence examination conducted by the time the arguments were concluded until the closing of arguments in the appellate court, the appellate court shall not reverse the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the judgment of the court of first instance on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the court of first instance is different from the judgment of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2020, May 11, 2007). The court below determined the credibility of a victim E's testimony and made cash as stated in the facts.