The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) E’s statement, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, despite the fact that the Defendant stolen four of the casino chips E, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On May 3, 2017, at around 15:05, the Defendant: (a) brought four casino chips (one chips equivalent to KRW 1,00,100, three chips equivalent to KRW 1,100,000) on the part of the Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol by the victim E, from May 3, 2017, when the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol by the victim E in Yongsan-gu Seoul Yongsan-gu; (b) on the part of the facts charged, the Defendant abused the Defendant’s casino chips (three chips equivalent to KRW 1,30,000) on the part of the victim; (c) the facts admitted by the evidence adopted by the lower court, namely, the economic circumstance of E; and (d) the relationship between the Defendant and E, cannot easily lend the casino chips to KRW 130,00,000; and (d) the investigation agency from the Defendant to the lower court, stating that the Defendant’s casino chips was not a casino.

Defendant stated that he did not steals E’s wall and borrowed a casino chip.

The claim is stated to the purport, and the police officer F dispatched to the site stated in the court below that “E, at the time of being called to the site, at the time of being drunk, the Defendant stolen the wall while drunk, and did not talk about casino chips.

E was also punished by the Defendant, and even if so, there was no mentioning about the casino chips.

Other police officers, defendants, and E who are called together.