2. On the one hand, four summary orders were issued to the defendant for larceny, but three larcenys among the above four larcenys ordered by summary orders are in the form of larceny, but each crime constitutes embezzlement of money in his/her custody while the defendant works as a convenience store employee, and constitutes embezzlement.

I would like to say.

(A) The Prosecutor asserts that the Defendant’s act constitutes larceny, but the Defendant was in the position of a custodian in custody of money while working as a convenience store employee, and thus constitutes embezzlement. Therefore, the Defendant’s actual larceny record is limited to one case for which a summary order was issued, and the theft of this case was also stolen four times from February 1, 2014 to February 1, 2014. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant theft of this case was committed on the sole basis of the foregoing circumstances alone.

Therefore, the court below, which did not recognize the defendant's theft behavior, is just, and there is no error of law in misunderstanding legal principles.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.