The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence presented by the prosecutor in this case including the video of CCTV as well as the summary of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the Defendant committed the larceny crime as stated in the instant facts charged can be fully recognized.

In other words, the defendant asserts that the wall wall that the defendant taken out in the above video is not stolen but one's own wall, but the wall tag owned by the defendant is a color tag Gap, and the wall tag owned by the victim is different from the appearance of the defendant and the victim as the wall tag A.

In addition, in CCTV, the defendant's collection of money was taken from the frequency of CCTV and the defendant's hand-conscept of money, and the defendant's hand-conscept of money can not be seen as taking out money from the half of CCTV.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case, which erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case, which was found not guilty on the grounds as delineated below, is as follows.

On October 203, 2015, from around 20:50 to around 21:30, the Defendant stolen, with one hand phone (which includes two credit cards, resident certificates, driving licenses, and 1.50,000 won in cash) attached to the victim’s hand phone, which the victim F left on the shuttleer’s hand, which the victim F performed in the kitchen, and between the victim F and the victim F work in the kitchen, and one man’s hand tape (which include one credit card, two card, one resident card, one driver’s license, and one hundred and fifty thousand won in cash).

B. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the grounds that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court:

[Related legal principles] The recognition of criminal facts in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecutor’s proof leads to such conviction.