Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for theft by receiving.” Korelis, 273 Or at 429; Thomas, 13 Or App at 170-73. We explained, in the context of a jury trial, that giving a jury instruction that includes the phrase “having good reason to know” is erroneous because it suggests that a jury may consider whether a reasonable person would have believed that the property was stolen. Id. at 171-72. The same is true where the trier of fact is the court. See, e.g., Babler Bros. v. Pac. Intermountain, 244 Or 459, 467, 415 P2d 735 (1966) (“When the record discloses that the jury applied the wrong law to the problem, the verdict cannot stand. * * * Where an error of law is shown to have influenced the court trying a case without a jury, reversal is equally necessary.”); State v. Clum, 216 Or App 1, 7-9, 8 n 5, 171 P3d 980 (2007) . In this case, we are bound by Korelis. To be
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court is required to provide reasons for its decision prior to appeal
B. holding the trial court is required to make a determination on impairment of access prior to trial
C. holding that complaint on appeal must be the same as that presented in the trial court
D. holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court
E. holding that whether the trial court in a bench trial applied a correct understanding of the elements legally required to convict was reviewable on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.