The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was aware that the instant bags and handbags were the objects of driving and left to the carbags, and there was no intention of theft.

At the time, it was only a number of times committed as it was difficult to make accurate judgment due to the influence of alcohol, but there was a criminal defendant's intention to commit theft.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court as to the assertion of factual misunderstanding: ① the Defendant was seated at the victim’s seat (the opposite direction that the Defendant was seated not in the original seat) after leaving the seat; ② the Defendant was able to confirm through CCTV images that she was seated on the instant bank; ② the Defendant was an employee without any mentioning the instant bank; ③ the witness F was able to take part in the Defendant’s handbag at the court of the lower court; ③ the Defendant was able to take part in the Defendant’s handbag at the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the year.

The statement was made (the trial record No. 41, 42 pages), that the F’s legal statement is consistent with the investigative agency’s statement, and that it is consistent with the Defendant’s behavior that can be confirmed by CCTV images, and (4) the F did not have personnel status despite the Defendant’s appearance.

A statement is made (for example, No. 43 of the trial record) and CCTV images, the fact that the defendant's wrong finding of the defendant's occupation or other people's goods are not visible to the extent of being drunk.