The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, together with D, committed a theft against the victim C, on the part of the Defendant.

Even though the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, observation of protection, and community service order) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the finding of guilt in a criminal trial must be based on the evidence with probative value, which can lead a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be judged even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). In addition, the appellate court has the character as a follow-up trial while the criminal case belongs, and also has the character as a follow-up trial in light of the spirit of substantial direct trial as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, it is difficult for the first instance court to hold a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as examination of witness.

In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely

Clearly concluding that the facts charged are not guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). 2) In full view of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, alone.