Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as a police investigation report (HH telephone conversations) and the result of the examination of false horses detection, cannot be said to have proven that the Defendant had the key to the instant vehicle without reasonable doubt.

The reasons cited by the court below are as follows, i.e., witness H of the trial court, which is described as witness in the investigation report prepared by the police, did not keep the key at the time of the first stopping of the vehicle at the time of the first stopping of the vehicle at the trial court, and observed only between the parts on which he was getting on and off the vehicle at the time of getting on and off the vehicle at the time of getting off the vehicle at the time of leaving the vehicle at the time of the first landing of the vehicle at the time of the first stopping of the vehicle at the time of the vehicle at the trial court. He also stated that the person was not what he was inside, and that he would not know that he was the defendant. In addition, the witness at the trial court did not appear to have a key at the time of telephone conversations with the investigative agency at the time of witnessing, but it did not appear that the victim was not the key of the vehicle at the time of the next landing, and that the person who was on board the vehicle at the time of the next landing of the vehicle at the time of the witness to the effect that the prosecutor did not provide evidence.