The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the statement of the victim and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on a different premise, even though the defendant was found to have stolen one million won of a check held by the victim. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the facts charged in this case.

2. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is between Defendant A and the victim C.

On February 14:00 on February 27, 2014, the Defendant, at Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu D operation 203, had a 8 million won check issued by the bank in the space where the victim was under the influence of alcohol, and stolen it.

B. In light of the fact that it is difficult for the Defendant to lend KRW 8 million or KRW 6 million to E in light of C’s economic ability, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, such as the Defendant’s statement at the court of the lower court’s judgment, the statement at C’s investigative agency, and C’s statement at the investigation agency of the lower court, and the fact that C did not want to change the number of the checks, and that it appears that it would not have been possible for the Defendant to borrow KRW 8 million or KRW 6 million. However, it is doubtful that the Defendant would not interfere with the instant check. However, it is difficult for the Defendant to use the Defendant’s statement to “I wish to bring the vehicle back to the end,” while indicating the instant check at one’s own office, and that “I would make it possible for the Defendant to use it to use it as the Defendant’s husband’s account immediately after the Defendant’s transfer to 60 million.”