The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the misunderstanding of facts or the misapprehension of legal principles (as to the part of the crime without credibility), E and the police officer’s statement, Defendant’s attitude of testimony without credibility, etc., there was an intention of unlawful acquisition, committed against the Defendant under his exclusive control, which was committed by the Defendant.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, and thereby acquitted this part of the charges.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On December 20, 2017, the Defendant, at around 17:00 on December 20, 2017, stolen a set of 1 punishment for female employees, who had been displayed on the street, at the market price equivalent to KRW 48,00,00, around Q from Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul.

B. According to the records, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence duly adopted and examined in the instant case alone is insufficient to recognize that there was an intention of unlawful acquisition of the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that there was insufficient reason to acknowledge that there was an intention of unlawful acquisition of the Defendant.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the record, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt about this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's above assertion is not accepted.

3. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, there are circumstances such as the fact that the defendant was sentenced to criminal punishment for the same kind of crime and the fact that the crime of this case was committed during the period of repeated crime.