The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) reveals that the instant television is donated to the victim by the Defendant, and is owned solely by the victim, or purchased by the Defendant when living together with the victim, and it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant and the victim

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there is no sufficient proof to do so is erroneous in the misapprehension of judgment.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant charges on the ground that the instant television was insufficient to recognize that it was owned by another person, i.e., the sole owner of the victim’s or joint ownership of the victim and the Defendant, by directly examining the victim D and investigating evidentiary documents, etc.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, as there is no objective reason that could affect the formation of new conviction in the court below, the evidence alone, which was produced by the prosecutor, was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the television of this case is owned by others.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the instant facts charged is justifiable to the same purport.

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