The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below found the Defendant guilty of causing property damage among the facts charged in the instant case and acquitted the Defendant of attempted larceny, and only the prosecutor appealed against the acquitted portion.

Therefore, the judgment of this court is limited to the acquittal portion among the judgment below since the conviction portion was finalized by the court below.

2. The theft of the summary trees of the grounds of appeal requires a period of preparation for transplantation. As such, the Defendant’s act of receiving a new net order and conducting ppuri operations in order to steal the trees of this case should be deemed the commencement of the commission of larceny. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

A. The progress prosecutor of the lawsuit maintains, in the trial, the facts charged as to the attempted larceny of the previous thief as the primary facts charged, as follows.

(1) The facts charged as stated in paragraph (1) are added to the facts charged in the preliminary charge, and this court permitted it and added to the subject of the judgment. Accordingly, the prosecutor's appeal against the existing facts charged and the facts charged in the preliminary charge are to be determined. (2) The defendant of this part of the facts charged is to have H receive a new order as to about about about 580 gys of 20 years sysysysysysysysysy from April 9, 2012 to April 20, 2012, the defendant of this part of the facts charged as follows: (a) from around April 9, 2012 to around April 20, 2012, to have H perform preparatory work related to tree transplantation; (b) to remove trees that interfered with the sysysysysysy, and (c) to cut the trees by planting them to the victim, and ultimately, to have approximately KRW 58 million in the market price owned by the victim.