The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, including the statement of the victim and E, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant was found to have been aware of the fact that he was another person's possession at the time of the instant case. However, the court below found the defendant not guilty of each of the facts charged in this case on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was aware of the identity of another person's property. Thus, the judgment of the court below

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. At around 15:00 on January 23, 2015, the Defendant maintained the effectiveness of the victim D’s house located in Gyeonggi-si, and by preventing the use of a 40 km-in-house, which was held by the victim in an anti-government unit, around 15:0, at the home of the victim D, which was kept in an anti-government unit, in an anti-government unit.

B. The Defendant above A.

At the time, at the same time and at the same place, the filing of such a bill was stolen by having an resistance in the city of the United States, where the victim came to possess, and later.

3. The judgment of the court below and the party deliberation

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the evidence alone, which was submitted by the prosecutor, is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant committed the same crime as indicated in the facts charged, and the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The Defendant and E were in the past, and they were living together in the buildings located in C (hereinafter “instant building”) at the time of strike. On the date stated in the facts charged in the instant case, E and the victim were living together in the instant building after filing a marriage report.

② The instant building was owned by the Defendant, but was owned by the Defendant and E under an exchange contract between the Defendant and E, and is in the Gyeonggi-si.