The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal submitted by the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, even though it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant attempted to steals the victim D's ozone layer, is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor’s determination of mistake of facts as to the primary facts charged has reached the following point of view.

As seen in the above, the court below found the attempted larceny not guilty as the primary charge and added it as the ancillary charge, and the prosecutor's assertion of misconception of facts as to the primary charge is still subject to the judgment of this court.

1) The summary of the facts charged found that the Defendant spawned off the way to drink, and spawned off the spawn by using the crepans where surveillance was neglected. On October 6, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 04:50 on October 6, 2013, around the Seo-gu, Daejeon-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon: (b) the Defendant: (c) the E spawn test spaba (hereinafter “the instant spaba”).

(2) The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant had commenced the commission of larceny with the intention of larceny, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, in view of the following circumstances. The witness at the investigative agency: “F, who was the witness at the investigative agency, was kiding the Defendant kids on the Otoba of the instant case and led the Defendant to go to the Simba without a key; “C, without a key, brought the Defendant to go to the Simba of the instant case; and H attempted to force the Defendant to go to go to the Simba without a key.”