Of them, the part of acquittal against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

Defendant.

A. The record reveals the following facts.

1) On September 13, 2012, the prosecutor: (a) committed a theft by the Defendant on September 13, 2012; (b) committed a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (damage, etc. to Joint Property); (c) interference with business; and (d) committed a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (damage to Joint Property) and interference with business on June 11, 2013, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge that the Defendant was guilty only for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (damage to Joint Property) and the crime of interference with business; and (c) acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was no intention of unlawful acquisition with respect to larceny.

3) On the grounds of unfair sentencing as to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant appealed respectively on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts and unfair sentencing as to the acquitted portion of the judgment of the court below, and on September 24, 2013, the first instance court, which was the appellate court, dismissed all the Defendant and the prosecutor’s appeal on September 24, 2013. As to this, only the prosecutor appealed on the acquitted portion of the judgment of the court prior to remand. The Supreme Court accepted the prosecutor’s appeal on January 23, 2014, and reversed the acquitted portion of the judgment prior to

B. According to the above facts found, the prosecutor appealed only to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court of first instance prior to remand. Since the conviction portion of the judgment prior to remand, which has a relation of substantive concurrent crimes between this part of the facts charged and Article 37 of the Criminal Act, is separated and confirmed as both parties concerned did not appeal, the scope of the judgment after remand is limited to the part of larceny portion of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal by a prosecutor;

A. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor for mistake of facts.