A. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, according to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant could be found to have stolen the victim F’s property as stated in this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). Moreover, in light of the fact that an appellate trial belongs to the court and has the nature of a post facto trial and the spirit of substantial direct trial as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is insufficient proof to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing examination of evidence by the first instance court.

In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely

The lower court, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor, cannot be found guilty of the facts charged (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). 2), in this case, the lower court’s determination in full view of the circumstances indicated in its holding, is the actual victim’s evidence alone.