The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In a situation where it is difficult to readily conclude that the victim of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) caused the collapse of the wall, there was no time to leave the room, and there was no contact within the wall, and there was no intention to steal the wall inevitably.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant had the intent to commit a theft and intent to acquire unlawful acquisition, on the grounds of the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant: (a) found the victim’s walked around the platform at the time when he discovered the wall; (b) brought the wall to the victim’s daily activity without any specific confirmation; (c) even if the Defendant had no time to do so at the time, it appears that the Defendant could have easily stored the wall by a short-term driver; (iii) it is difficult to obtain the Defendant’s defense that the Defendant left the wall on the ground of a return call; and (b) the Defendant asserted that the content of the wall was “her return to the bus stop,” even though he confirmed the content of the wall after the passage, and did not take all measures to return the wall.

B. The court below's decision that the defendant's act of theft and illegal acquisition intent is just and it does not seem to have any error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts in the judgment below, even if the result of the investigation of evidence by reproducing CDs upon the case of crime committed in the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.