The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, although there was no fact that the Defendant had received food materials in the warehouse of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor of mistake of facts (Fraud) compared the list of goods directly prepared by the defendant (hereinafter “list of the defendant”) and the list of goods prepared by F, an employee of the defendant, (hereinafter “F list”), and stated in the list of the defendant as being entered in the warehouse of this case. The public prosecutor instituted the instant public prosecution that the defendant acquired the goods not entered in the F list from the victim.

In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt is against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151 Decided July 22, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). According to the records, the defendant prepared a list of the defendants according to his/her memory after July 2012 at the victim’s request, which is doubtful as to whether the goods alleged to have been stored in the warehouse of this case were actually stored, and the defendant made a list of the defendants pursuant to his/her own memory; ② the F sent the goods purchased with the money received from the defendant to the customer without entering into the warehouse of this case; ③ the F stated that it was not aware of whether the goods purchased by the defendant were directly purchased, and ④ F.