A. Prosecutor 1) In light of the following circumstances: (a) the victim E of misunderstanding of facts consistently states the existence of rebuttals among the damaged goods; and (b) F’s statement also conforms to the victim’s assertion, the Defendant is entitled to the date and place indicated in the instant facts charged in the instant case, and the vinyl paper written in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “the instant vinyl paper”).

(2) The lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. (2) The lower court’s sentencing sentence of KRW 300,000 (the suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 300,000) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. The Defendant (Definite) brought about the instant vinyl which was suffering from reading centers, but this was kept in good faith by other persons having concerns over bringing about the said vinyl, and thus, the Defendant did not intend to illegally acquire the goods contained in the instant vinyl.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the grounds that it is difficult to deem that the fact that the victim appeared in the plastic paper of this case without any reasonable doubt that it was proven within the plastic paper of this case.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to have proved to the extent that there was no reasonable doubt as to the existence of one half of the vinyl in the instant plastic paper, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

1 - - the counter-place;