The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Even based on the Defendant’s statement on the summary of the grounds for appeal, it is recognized that the Defendant had been in a separate building with the first-class 3 class class of the first-class class of the instant crime committed from around 14:17 to 14:24 on July 23, 2015. As such, the Defendant had a sufficient time to steal the Defendant, and the date on which the file was created in the restricteduflashpool is merely an indication of the time when the first file was created, and the number of files submitted by the Defendant is excessive to 28 pages and is highly likely to have been prepared at will in the trial process.

In full view of the fact that G only the data stored in the outside Hadrid are returned, and that the Defendant sent the data of the same item by e-mail on September 7, 2015, and that G did not have any reason to dismiss the Defendant, the Defendant thefted the victim’s outer hoid, etc.

Although it is reasonable to view otherwise, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is between the victim G and the victim G from around 2006 to November 201, 2014.

On July 23, 2015, the Defendant, at around 14:12 on July 23, 2015, brought up one outside 100,000 won of the victim’s market value on the books in which the victim was placed in a classroom at the first-class 3 class of the I elementary school, and brought up one micro-mail chip (hereinafter “the victim’s smartphone, etc.”) located in the victim’s smartphone.

Accordingly, the Defendant stolen the property owned by the victim.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was not sufficient to prove that the facts charged were proven without reasonable doubt.

1) On February 15, 2015, the Defendant came to know of the fact that G, while the Defendant was under a bridge with another woman, was traveling along with the other woman, to G.