The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the victim consistently stated that he was able to see the defendant's visibility when the defendant was living in his dwelling. Even if the trust relationship between the defendant and the victim was formed at the time, it is unreasonable to accurately memory the date on which the victim delivered the above goods to the defendant after a considerable time, it is delivered when only the parties exist in the dwelling area, and there is no objective evidence other than the victim's statement, and G is insufficient to reverse the first police's statement at the court of the original instance, thereby undermining the credibility of the victim's statement in most cases, and criminal complaint is filed in most cases after the dispute occurred. However, the court below rejected the victim's statement without reasonable grounds and acquitted the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts of this case.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) received the Defendant’s delivery from the victim of rubbing and altony sights only on the basis of each of the statements and the remaining evidence in the investigative agency and the lower court’

It is not sufficient to recognize that the victim brought money or goods for convenience stores in the same business with the victim voluntarily, and not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the facts charged in this case are only based on the statements of the victim's investigative agency and the court below and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor.