The judgment of the court below which acquitted the witness without the examination of witness by revoking M's decision to adopt a witness, although it is necessary to hear M's testimony as to the part inconsistent with C, etc.'s testimony, is erroneous and erroneous.

2. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, found the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and, in light of the foregoing, found that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone embezzled the security deposit for lease related to real estate owned by the victim foundation, or that the Defendant was proved without reasonable doubt as to whether it stored or disposed of any curios 193 points, such as the list of crimes attached to the facts charged, in the indictment.

The court determined that it could not be seen.

We agree with the finding of facts and the judgment of the court below as legitimate if the court below reviewed the evidence duly adopted and investigated.

M’s testimony at the trial is difficult to believe in light of the testimony of witness G of the lower court and the text message (Evidence No. 50) submitted by the Defendant, which could have been submitted by the Defendant, because it is in a neutral position and it is difficult to find the reason for the Defendant to make a statement favorable to the Defendant differently from the facts.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.