2. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged reveals that the Defendant works as a factory site in Briju from May 14, 2014 to February 6, 2015, the victim E working as a factory site in Briju City from May 14, 2014 to February 6, 2015, and did not collect the beginning amount of trees produced therein, and thereby, the Defendant’s use of a large quantity of trees, the market price of which is unknown, by spreading it back acid, etc.

B. The lower court’s judgment based on the following circumstances, i.e., ① the statement in the court of the lower court’s court’s court’s original witness G was transferred from other employees as to the developments of the instant case, and thus inappropriate as evidence to support the facts charged; ② the witness F of the original court’s court began to work in a factory where the Defendant was in writing in the factory; ② the witness F of the original court’s court began to work in a place where the Defendant was in writing before the date of the entry into the factory; from that time to that time, there was a arra and rubber straw to remove the beginning amount into mountain, and the employees had

There was no other means to resolve the problem at a low level.”

(3) The victim is able to verify the situation of the business center from time to time through his own cell phone because there are more than 10 CCTV installed at the court of original instance at the court of original instance two times a week.

In light of the fact that the defendant stated, the facts charged have been proved to the extent that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that he may throw the beginning amount with the victim's implied consent.

On the ground that it is difficult to see this part of the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

(c)

In light of the records of the above deliberation, the court below's above findings and determination are recognized.