The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (thief, misunderstanding of facts) is difficult to believe the defendant's statement that the defendant put the wall of this case into his own Australia money under the influence of alcohol in light of the circumstances leading up to entering the police station, which is the place where the facts charged in this case were charged, and the detailed contents about the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties of this case occurred immediately after the thief crime of this case are relatively detailed, and it is hard to believe the defendant's statement that the defendant was in his own Australia money. Even though he knew that the defendant was not himself when he confirmed the contents of the above wall, he again put the wall into his own Australia money, and later did not comply with the police officer's request that the above wall was presented, and the defendant first put the above wall of this case into his own Australia, and at least it can be recognized that the defendant had the above wall with his intention of unlawful acquisition, or that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the evaluation of probative value of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. A. Around April 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 03:31 on April 7, 2012, the summary of the facts charged regarding the theft of this case: (b) stolen the victim E, who visited the victim E, to investigate other cases, by using the gap in which the victim E, who was on his own, moved to another place; and (c) included cash, gift certificates, credit cards, etc., owned by the victim, in his own money.

B. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant appears to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time; and (b) the Defendant, immediately before the police officer demanding the presentation of identification cards, found him/her to have presented his/her identification card.