The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: ① With respect to the portion not guilty among the judgment below, the document bags and the documents contained therein in the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed as having no value as property which is the object of larceny; as long as the defendant is not owned, there is no doubt that another person's property is a property; and further, there was an implied consent of the victim on the part of the bags with the document bags.

not only can it be said that there was the consent of the defendant of the victim.

There is a justifiable reason even if the misunderstanding was made.

As long as it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and ② in light of such errors, the sentence of the lower court, which sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 1,00,000, is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged as to the portion not guilty among the judgment below is clear that the judgment of the court below of the second instance as to the facts charged in the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

It is true that the victim G-owned petition, list, and document bags containing a written proposal for dismissal, which was placed on the date and time of entry, at a place, was stolen without permission of the injured party.

B. As to this, the lower court held that G’s investigative agency and the statement in the lower court alone owned the victim’s ownership of the envelope and the documents contained therein (the petition to reduce the mandatory ratio of small-sized houses, the petition to remove the president of the association, the letter of proposed dismissal).

It is not sufficient to recognize, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and even if so, that ownership is owned by the victim.

Even if the value of the above document bags is not the envelope itself nor the paper itself, and according to the witness G's statement in the court below.