According to the relevant evidence, although the fact that the defendant has changed the amount returned by his/her customer into the domestic waste disposal, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

The court below determined that there was no evidence to acknowledge the guilty of the facts charged in this case merely on the ground that there was no evidence to prove otherwise, on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge the guilty of the facts charged in this case, on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that five of the five of the fixed amount sent by the Defendant, who is an employee of the mobile phone service center, to the head office upon the return of the customer, had the possibility of changing the amount returned from the Defendant to the head office of the headquarters prior to the transfer of the fact that the Defendant was returned from the customer to the head office.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be said that there is an error of misunderstanding of facts.

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