The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the records on the gist of the grounds of appeal, even though the defendant could fully recognize the theft of the victim's wallet as stated in the facts charged of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, and thereby acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination

A. On August 22, 2017, the Defendant, as an acting driver, placed the victim’s E at the public parking lot of Osan City around 16:23, 2017, and among the Do that had the victim’s E on board and was living at the F consignment address of the wife F of the wife population at Permitted-si, the Defendant, as an acting driver, left the victim’s 2.8 million won in cash at a place lower than 200 meters away from the above public parking lot.

At around 16:31 on the same day, the Defendant discovered a wall, which the damaged person gets in the vicinity of the long distance, and then stolen it.

B. The lower court determined that, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant stolen the victim’s wall as stated in the facts charged.

The court judged that it was insufficient to recognize the defendant and sentenced the defendant not guilty.

(1) The Defendant got off the phone that he was called “B” and returned to the phone of “B”, she was in the form of hand and followed the G convenience store building, and later returned to the former.

In that sense, even if CCTV images were to be followed, it is not clearly apparent as to what the Defendant cited in the left hand at the time of leaving the building following the G convenience store, and even if the Defendant again went back to the building behind the G convenience store at around 17:50 on the day of the instant case, it is not completely confirmed that the Defendant cited the words when he went back to the building behind the G convenience store.

Therefore, the fact that the goods cited by the Defendant are E, without reasonable doubt, proven that they are E

shall not be deemed to exist.

Dor, the Defendant, on two occasions following the building of G convenience stores, was for the purpose of bringing to toilets.