절도미수
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant did not have any intention to obtain unlawful acquisition even though he/she knew that the building stones was owned by the victim and attempted to sell it, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. According to C’s legal statement, E’s police statement, and F’s written statement, etc., the Defendant operated H in the following cities: (a) around June 2017; (b) upon entering into a lease agreement to enable I to continue to conduct his/her business on the same spot; (c) the fact that H’s land and building were distributed to F on April 16, 2018 in the same field as the victim and I’s stone; and (d) the fact that H site and building were transferred to F on the part of the victim on the part of Apr. 16, 2018 through a public sale procedure that the victim was mixed with I, and that the victim could not unilaterally acquire the building stones on his/her own behalf of the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant cannot be found to have sold part of the charges, in light of the fact that I and F did not request the Defendant to do so on behalf of the Defendant.
B. In addition to the reasoning of the court below's judgment, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is just and it is hard to see that there was an error of law as alleged by the prosecutor.
The victims of the defect that F, upon the successful bid, caused the victim to cover the stone on the land, could not unilaterally cut out because part of the stone I, and the victim is not clear at the time of the original trial, because it is unclear about ownership at the time of the original trial.