beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In light of CCTV images at the time when the Defendant brought the victim’s wallet, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was stolen with the first intent of unlawful acquisition, and reported it to the police box by a change in the police box, since the Defendant was found to have taken advantage of the CCTV images at the time when the Defendant brought the victim’s wallet, and was found to have taken advantage of the CCTV, and was found to have taken advantage of the lock, and did not have reported it to the police box at that time.
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the Defendant did not have any intention to obtain unlawful acquisition. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of
2. Determination
A. On May 25, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 22:52, the Defendant: (b) found the victim F, who was the front customer, while being milked in the Eniboo vehicle in the Enibus oil station, found the wallets locked on the upper part of the main gas station; and (c) stolen the wall by using the crebs that are not inside the gas station, 13 copies of cash 13, and 1 copy of the driver’s license.
B. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (i) the Defendant: (a) was aware of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court; (b) the Defendant, from the investigative agency to the Korean University having knowledge of women’s child-friendliness; (c) was committed to the “D” accelerator for gas supply; and (d) was found to have caused the victim’s walling; and (e) the Defendant sought to report on the acquisition of lost articles to the police station to find the victim’s walling; and (b) the Defendant was deemed to have not had an employee of the gas station having known of the building entrance of the accelerator at night 10:52 at night when the victim’s walling was acquired; and (c) the Defendant was found to have not had an employee of the gas station who was permanently stationed and permanently stationed in the above hours.