The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (definite) and the CCTV video of the site of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant stolen the wallets owned by the victim, since it is not the Defendant, since the victim was 84 times the time when the victim was seated. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in matters of law by misunderstanding the facts,

2. Determination

A. A. Around March 12, 2017, the Defendant, at around 07:18, stolen the Defendant’s summary of the facts charged from the “C” located on the 2nd floor of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul building B, Seoul to the 84 tableing the table table. Around March 12, 2017, the Defendant stolen the Defendant’s wall containing KRW 150,000 in cash owned by the victim D and E-mail cards.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case on the ground that the facts acknowledged by its adopted evidence, that is, according to the PC CCTV images at the time of the instant case, the victim admitted to the PC room and carried out the game on the 84th unit, that the victim moved to the PC room 80th unit, that the victim did not return to the 84th unit, and that the victim did not find the 84 unit but did not find the 84 unit, and that there was no other person, there was suspicion as to the thief crime of larceny in light of the fact that the Defendant was cleaned, but it is difficult to view that the victim’s statement and CCTV images alone were proven to the extent that there was no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the victim’s wall cannot be seen as having been by the Defendant on the 84 unit of the victim’s wall.

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, whether the circumstance acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court (i.e., CCTV images at the instant site), i.e., whether the Defendant acquired a victim’s wall 1 at the 84 location.