The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors) C and D’s statements to investigation agencies and CCTV photographs, it is recognized that the Defendant habitually committed the larceny act stated in the facts charged in the instant case, such as C and D.

2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the CCTV photographs alone are insufficient to recognize the facts charged in light of the following: (a) the statement made to the investigative agency of C and D at the time when C and D were made by the investigation agency; (b) the background behind C and D’s statement made in the investigation agency; (c) the reversal of all the statements made in the above investigation agency in the trial court; and (d) the Defendant engaged in the business of Lestop and operated as a bad business.

In addition, the judgment of the court below is closely examined in comparison with the evidence records, and in addition, the judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no other objective evidence to readily conclude that the person expressed in CCTV photographs that C and D were the defendant at the investigative agency (the above statement made by C and D was reversed in the investigative agency in the court of the court below) is the defendant, and there is no error of mistake of facts.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.