2. Determination

A. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court held that ① Party E does not go to facing and dancing the Defendant’s front, but should consider the same direction, and the Defendant put his hand into his own Cheongbro, thereby taking the cream card and his resident registration certificate into consideration.

Habre Habk

However, E's key is about 180 cm and the defendant has a significant difference about 152 cm, E's Cheongbane position is the height of the defendant's chest, and it is practically difficult to put the hand into E's hand after the defendant's dancing while returning his arms.

It appears that E was placed towards Defendant chest after the Defendant taken the body card, etc. on the day of the case.

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the CCTV was found to have been put in front after the statement was made, but the CCTV was found to have been found to have been in front of the inner part, on the ground that it was difficult to believe that the statement was inconsistent, and that it was difficult to eliminate the possibility that he voluntarily put in his own main part of the machine and his physical card, etc. would have diminished (see, e.g., the images revealed after April 40 minutes and the images revealed at the beginning of 20 minutes).

B. In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the Defendant’s submission of the evidence by the prosecutor alone stolen the victim’s resident registration certificate, etc.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case does not err by mistake.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

(1) At the time of the instant case, the victim entered the Cheongbane, which was the same as the resident registration certificate in the Cheongbane.