As it is difficult to see that the defendant had no intention to commit a theft.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding facts.

2. Determination:

A. On January 31, 2018, the Defendant, at around 12:51, destroyed-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoul apartment house 107, and then stolen items and approximately 1 set of quibane (6) owned by the victim D (3) who is a neighboring resident of 107 dong and 1604, respectively.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, namely, the mail as provided by 2104, in which the Defendant’s residence, and the mail as provided by 1604, are placed below; and (b) the Defendant does not take the mail as provided by 2104, but does not take the mail as provided by 1604.

In light of the fact that the quibol powder is divided into all households which did not undergo a disinfection inspection, and that postal items are not identified by the receiver, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant had the intention to larceny.

The charges were acquitted on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(c)

In addition to the above circumstances appropriately discussed by the court below's decision, considering the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the court below, the defendant is old, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the defendant had no reasonable doubt about the defendant's intention of theft.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of mistake as alleged by the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.