The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the statements by the witnesses of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant of the charges of this case, although it could sufficiently be recognized that the Defendant has stolen the parts of the victim D.

2. A witness E who appeared to have been witnessing that the Defendant brought about a flower was a brupt, while the Defendant stated at the time that the Defendant was a brush, the victim was stolen of a flower containing a brush, frush, frush, frush, etc.

argument is asserted.

In addition, considering the various circumstances recognized by the records of this case, it is difficult to readily conclude that a person who steals the stolen victim DNA is the defendant even if comprehensively considering the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as stated in the court below.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the facts charged in this case did not prove a crime are justifiable.

We cannot accept the prosecutor's assertion of factual mistake.

3. If so, the Prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.