The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was in exclusive charge of the business of directly bringing the goods delivered to the Republic of Korea from customs office to the point of this case. In light of D and I’s statements, the Defendant appears to have worked at the point of this case even at the time when the damaged goods arrive at the point of this case, D, I provided the damaged goods to H, and H provided the damaged goods to H.

In light of the statement, the defendant committed the larceny of this case.

Although it is reasonable to see that the court below acquitted the defendant, it erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination:

A. From Jun. 2, 2014 to Aug. 22, 2014, the Defendant: (a) during the period from Jun. 22, 2014 to Jun. 22, 2014, at the Incheon Customs Office located in Jungdong 7, Jung-gu, Incheon, to a domestic address; (b) committed a theft of Samsung Empt (hereinafter “Empt”) worth approximately KRW 1.5 million at the market price in the Canadian’s territory while he/she delivered a substitute compensationer to a domestic address.

B. Determination 1) The lower court determined as follows: (a) the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted; (b) the number of winners of the instant Not North Korea was completed delivery to the victim on August 23, 2014; and (c) the point at which the instant Not North Korea arrived at the instant branch on August 2014, in light of the required period for domestic delivery; (b) the Defendant was only in the operation of the instant branch on June 2014; (c) the transportation route, etc. of the instant Not Korea cannot be confirmed due to considerable interval of time between the time when the Not North Korea was lost and the commencement of the investigation; and (c) D and I expressed the instant Not to H free of charge.

H was set up from H

Although the statement was made, H’s direct receipt of the Not North Korea is not able to verify the authenticity of the statement because it had already died before the commencement of the investigation of this case, ④ the statements of D and I are not in conformity with detailed parts, and the Defendant, D and I.