The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The victims of the grounds for appeal consistently state that the cash does not exist in the physical treatment room, which is the place where the instant facts charged were committed. It is reasonable to view that part of the cash kept in the room or flasium was stolen at the same time, or some of the victims were stolen at the same time. A person entering the above physical treatment room is only the defendant, a female nurse, or another patient being treated at the adjacent beds, and the victims’ actions with the nurse and other patients who entered the above physical treatment room were reported.

According to the statements of the victims, the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, although the defendant sufficiently proves the facts charged of this case that he stolen the cash of the victims.

2. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231 Decided June 28, 2012). As to the instant case, in particular, as to the theft of the victim E in the instant facts charged, the victim took part of the 10,000 won labs that were put into contact with the back labbbbs, while the victim was receiving physical treatment in the process of receiving physical treatment. This appears to be difficult in itself, and rather, it appears that the Defendant’s labing of all of the labs is highly likely to cause danger, and only part of the cash at the risk of causing danger of labing.