2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, as stated in the facts charged, steals by the Defendant.

① The Defendant consistently makes a statement from an investigative agency to this court to the effect that “the instant envelope is considered to be a garbage bag at the time,” and consistently stated to the effect that “the instant envelope is deemed to be a garbage bag.”

② During the process of completing the secondary packaging of other clothes, the Defendant moved the instant envelope to a place where waste is stored after collecting waste from the office among the employees of the same fee, and thereafter, the Defendant appears to have laid the instant envelope to a place where other garbage bags are located, along with other garbage bags.

As such, dumping garbage after completing the package of clothes constitutes the ordinary work of the defendant.

③ Even if the envelope of this case is the clothes received by the Defendant, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was aware of it in light of the following circumstances.

Other clothes bags at the time have been completed up to the second package, while the instant envelope was in the same white as other garbage bags in a state where only the first package was made.

In general, it is common that articles not sent on the day are kept together in a large mar box, but the envelope of this case was left alone on the floor of the office in the first package.

(The instant envelope was completed up to the first second package, but it became the first package in the process of opening the package for the confirmation of quantity.