The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal: In full view of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant even though it could be found guilty of paragraph (2) among the facts charged in the instant case, based on the following: (a) as to the juvenile protection case’s summary of [2] Special thief, and intrusion of buildings (hereinafter “paragraph (2) of the instant indictment,” the Prosecutor for Classification of the Busan Juvenile Reformatory, the classification review prepared by the Busan Juvenile Reformatory, and the protective disposition by the Busan Family Court, etc., the J recognized the crime with Defendant; and (b) the statement of the lower court at the lower court was merely the purport that the Defendant’s testimony at the lower court was insufficient to prevent considerable time from committing the instant crime; and (c) on the other hand, the lower court acquitted the Defendant even though it could be found guilty of the facts charged in the instant indictment,

Sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, observation of protection, and community service order 120 hours) against the Defendant is too uneasy and unfair.

On the grounds delineated below, the lower court determined that there was no proof of a crime as to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The Defendant consistently denied the aforementioned facts charged to the effect that no money or valuables were stolen in collaboration with the J, as set forth in paragraph (2) of the instant facts charged from the investigative agency to this court.

As the Defendant denies its content in this court, the police interrogation protocol and investigation report against the J, which correspond to Article 2 of the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds that the Defendant stated to the effect that he/she does not have any memory that stolen another’s property with the Defendant despite his/her repeated questioning by the prosecutor and the presiding judge in this court, the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecution alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The judgment of the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.