The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is that the victim laid the wall on the ATM machine, and the victim using the ATM machine before causing the victim to find the wall on the ATM machine is paid by the defendant. The defendant withdrawn the money from the ATM machine, put the wall on his own part, and opened the examination color wall that is used in his hand. In light of the above, the court below acquitted the defendant even if the defendant was found to have stolen the wall on the part of the victim on the ATM machine, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment: (a) According to CCTV images, the victim continued to have telephone conversationsd from the time of carrying money to the time of withdrawing and leaving the money; (b) only check out the cash from the State money before ATM; and (c) there is no clear check on the face surface of the wall in the ATM machine; and (b) there is a camera in which the body of the victim withdraws money was installed; and (c) it appears that the victim and the defendant have taken the image of the victim and the defendant who withdrawn money from the ATM machine. However, if the victim were to have been sealed on the ATM machine or the defendant had a wall, only the victim and the defendant were to have withdrawn money from the KaM, which was taken by the above Kamer, and the defendant did not have a photograph or image submitted by the victim and the defendant before the ATM machine; and (d) if the defendant did not have a photograph or image, the victim’s photograph or image was not submitted.