The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant, on the ground of appeal, acquitted the Defendant on the ground that he could not mislead the Defendant of the instant horse, etc. as a thief, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the fact-finding, on the ground that the Defendant could not recognize the intention of larceny, even though he did not obtain permission on the disposal of the instant horse, etc. from the manager I, owner F, and G of the housing remodeling construction site of the instant farm household, and brought about the instant horse, etc. without permission on the disposition of the instant horse, etc.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in the circumstances as shown in the judgment below, namely, the farming house of this case was not D but owned by F and G, and it could have been seen as owned by F and G. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. H. H., of this case’s residential house of this case, was disposed of or discarded on the water, and the Defendant who was a daily worker was also able to hear it. The Defendant was left alone for more than 10 years and did not walked even at Dong. As such, the Defendant considered F and G as the owner of the farming house of this case’s residential house of this case as a water unbrupted.

The judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is correct, and the prosecutor's assertion is without merit, since there is no mistake or misunderstanding of the facts pointed out by the prosecutor.

3. The appeal by the Prosecutor is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.