The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the objective circumstances indicated in the record of the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though the court below which acquitted the defendant, has erred and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, even though it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant had an incomplete intention to commit the theft and that there was an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition.

2. At around 22:20 on January 31, 2016, the Defendant: (a) placed the victim E (hereinafter referred to as “AF”) on the packaging unit of the D 1st floor located in Gumi-si, Gumi-si; (b) placed the victim E (hereinafter referred to as “C”); (c) placed the 19-year-old LGG G3 handphones and women’s wall bags (cash 16,000 won, Nonghyup CC cards, etc.) on the packing unit; and (d) laid down the place of a locking.

3. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is doubtful that the defendant did not commit all acts to return Handphones and wallets to the victim, such as taking handphones and wallets of the victim who was in the D1st floor packing unit, and taking handphones and walletss from the police officer until contact is received from the police officer on the following day, and it is doubtful that the defendant did not steals handphones and wallets. However, in criminal trials, criminal facts should be based on strict evidence with probative value that makes the judge not have any reasonable doubt. Thus, if the prosecutor's proof fails to reach the degree of conviction, it should be determined in light of the defendant's interest even if there is doubt of conviction, such as the defendant's assertion or defense contradictory or unfolded.

The court below asserted that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the defendant found the main person from the investigative agency to this court, and brought the handphone and the wall to return the handphone and the wall, but the defendant was in custody at the time of this case, but the late time of this case 22.