The judgment of the court below (excluding the part dismissing an application for adjudication on constitutionality) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The court below ruled not guilty of the facts charged in this case, and dismissed the defendant's application for an adjudication on the unconstitutionality of law. Since only the prosecutor appealeds against the judgment below, the dismissed part of the application for adjudication on the unconstitutionality of law was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the above dismissed part is excluded from the scope of the trial of this Court.

2. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant and the victim’s statements in each court below and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on a different premise, on the ground that the Defendant, directly and in collusion with the employees of the victim’s book to search for the victim’s resignation, or at least two other C.C. head office (hereinafter “instant safe”).

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the grounds stated in its reasoning, on the ground that the facts charged in the instant case constituted a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and rendered a judgment of innocence under the latter part of

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant could be found to have directly followed the victim's book in order to find the victim's letter of resignation at the time and place indicated in the facts charged of this case. Thus, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, which is erroneous in the misconception of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is justified.

1) At the police station, the victim stated that the victim told the defendant himself that he had followed his book on the victim’s book (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Apr. 2, 201).