2. The court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, on the ground that there is no proof of facts constituting the crime. In addition to the reasons stated by the court below, the evidence corresponding to the facts charged of this case is the only statement of the complainant, and when considering the fact that the complainant knew that the complainant was aware that the purpose of leasing the land was to be used as the office of the defendant, it cannot be ruled out that there was an implied permission on the application for the use of electricity, and the defendant's assertion on the circumstance that the complainant obtained a copy of the driver's license in the name of the complainant is that "the defendant was delivered from the "cafeteria" which operates the restaurant from the complainant in the building of the complainant, but the investigation on the process of obtaining the driver's license, such as the investigation on the above restaurant, is not properly conducted, the judgment of the court below is justified and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.