The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, even though the defendant was requested to return the victim's prior custody on behalf of the victim, the court below acquitted the defendant by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The court below's sentencing and warning (the part of the crime of oil): Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order.

2. Determination

A. In the trial process of the appellate court’s determination of mistake of facts, there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence, and the first instance court’s determination of evidence was clearly erroneous.

Where there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant refused the victim’s request for return of the writing or that the Defendant had the intent of embezzlement, based on the circumstances in its reasoning.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous.

There is no reasonable ground to believe that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair because it is against logical and empirical rules.

The record reveals the following circumstances: ① the Defendant participated in Marinn and possessed the Victim’s writing with a chance to leave the Defendant’s contact on March 3, 2018 or on March 4, 2018; thus, the Defendant had no opportunity to return the Defendant’s writing.