"[W]hen the property alleged to be stolen is proven to be stolen property and the crime charged has been committed by someone, the recent unexplained possession of the stolen property by the defendant is a circumstance from which guilt may be inferred [cit.], that is, the defendant charged committed the theft proven. This being so, no further circumstances or direct proof showing the defendant committed the theft is necessary for a conviction." Selph v. State, 142 Ga. App. 26, 29 (234 SE2d 831) (1977). The appellant admitted not only his use of the leased Toyota but that the bolt cutters found with the stolen box, themselves circumstantially incriminating, belonged to him. His sole explanation concerning the stolen box was that he had never seen it before. The jury was authorized on proper instructions to consider that explanation unsatisfactory. See Chubbs v. State, 204 Ga. 762 (51 SE2d 851) (1949).