The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the statements in D and all the circumstances acknowledged thereby, the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that the Defendant withdrawn and stolen a total of KRW 1,500,000 by using the Nonghyup Card owned by D around June 12, 2014.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the charges is as follows: (a) around June 12, 2014; (b) the Defendant, at the E Music Research Institute operated by D with the fourth floor of the 4th floor of the Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, Seoul; and (c) taken off the No.D’s physical card

In addition, a sum of 1.5 million won shall be deposited in the automatic payment machine of a victim NongHyup Bank in the vicinity of the above educational institute and the password, etc. shall be withdrawn two times thereafter and the cash equivalent to the sum of 1.5 million won shall be withdrawn.

They go back.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

B. The lower court determined that among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not have any other evidence as well as the statement in the trial record and the investigative agency on June 12, 2014, regarding the theft of KRW 1,50,000,000 using the Nonghyup Card. The Defendant consistently denied this part of the facts charged, unlike the police and the prosecutor’s investigation stage, from the time to the court of the lower judgment, and the Defendant’s confirmation document prepared by the Defendant at D’s request is missing, and all other facts constituting the facts constituting the Defendant’s cash service, and the Defendant received a monthly payment from the account by means of phone bank.