The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant could fully recognize the fact that he stolen the cash of the victim and embezzled the victim's personal telephone. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. On April 23, 2016, around 08:57, the thief Defendant: (a) went to the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu, where the victim F who was driven by the Defendant was going to go to and going to go to the house while going to the house; and (b) came to the above 40 of the thief, and came to the thief to go to the Defendant’s house.

The defendant lost his mobile phone, once again unclaimed the victim who requests the above restaurant to see the above restaurant, and then gets off the restaurant in front of the above restaurant, and scam the cash by using the present pipe password which the victim saw when entering the house, using the victim's residence.

At around 09:07 on the same day, the Defendant classified the entrance password, which had been viewed and placed before the victim's residence, and entered the victim's house, and 50,000 won in cash in the West and stolen it.

2) On April 23, 2016, the Defendant, while driving an E-si around 09:00, discovered that the victim, who was on board while driving a taxi near the Seo-gu G of Gwangju, was on board and was in custody of the victim, was found to have been on the back seat of the taxi, but he/she embezzled it by refusing to return it without justifiable grounds.

B. The lower court’s judgment, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence admitted by the prosecutor, etc., the Defendant steals cash owned by the victim and owned by the victim solely on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.