One of the arguments is that it is difficult to believe the defendant's statement because the victim's wallet was not discovered in the relevant mail box.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant was found to have inflicted on the victim's wall by the intention of illegal acquisition, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the

2. The lower court determined: (a) the Defendant was placed in the instant post box to return the victim’s wallet to the owner; and (b) the Defendant was placed in the instant post box to return the victim’s wall.

A consistent statement, ② the statement between the victim and the defendant on the part that there was a student certificate of the victim and a resident registration certificate of another person in the name of another person located in the way of the victim inside the victim’s wall, ③ the defendant was in the investigative agency, and ③ the address of the resident registration certificate on the wall was in Incheon.

“Statement was made to the effect that the Defendant was posted on July 18, 2016, which was around the time of the instant crime.

In full view of the fact that the address of the person stated in the letter box includes a resident registration certificate that includes a " Incheon", the defendant has a intention to larceny or to illegally obtain it solely on the ground that he/she left the wall of the victim.

It is difficult to see

The decision was determined.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the judgment is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That the second half of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the land price, and it is evident that the second half of the judgment below's " female flag" is a clerical error in the land price, and thus, it is corrected in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the