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

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, it is doubtful that the defendant is guilty even if there is no evidence to establish such a conviction.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305 delivered on February 25, 2000, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case in light of the records, it is reasonable to view that the court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, had the victim's consent or presumption to possess the goods of this case while arranging officetels used as a commercial sex business establishment. Even if the defendant did not give such consent or presumption, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant had taken possession of the said goods with the intention of larceny. Thus, the judgment of innocence is just and acceptable since the facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misconception of facts.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.