The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, even though it can be sufficiently recognized in light of the victim's legal statement and the fact that the victim's fingerprints was found in the clothes used by the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The prosecutor’s assertion on this part of the judgment was at issue in the lower court, and the lower court, taking account of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, stolen the victim’s wallet with the intent of unlawful acquisition.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant charges on the ground that it cannot be readily concluded.

There is no new evidence submitted and examined in the trial, and in full view of the circumstances presented by the court below and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below's decision not guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error by mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) At the time of mobilization by the police, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, experienced difficulties for police officers to shoulder the Defendant to seek cooperation in investigation.

If the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, she was frightened of clothes in a narrow and long-term roshacker room, she she was placed on the part of the victim (the Defendant, along with the police, she was placed on the part of the victim at the time she opened the clothes with the police at the time she was placed on the inside of the clothes.

It cannot be concluded that there is no possibility that the statement is not proper.

(2) At the same time with the defendant for most hours.

F makes a statement that there was no witness to the instant crime, and according to the ctv video-recording photographs at the scene of the crime, the victim was also at least about 30 seconds of the rash, but was particularly awarded.