The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor was not guilty on the grounds of violation of the rules of evidence or mistake of facts as follows.

Defendant

The certificate of registered matters of the mobile phone use contract in the name alone cannot be deemed to have sold G with the previous galthot 2 telephone apparatus used by the defendant while changing the galthot to the galthot three telephone machines. Moreover, recognizing that customers had lawfully possessed the galthot 2 telephone apparatus against the taxi engineers in the national highways, etc., and sold the galth 3 to 40,000 won, which was lower than the market price of the mobile phone apparatus. The defendant was called G on August 6, 2014, and the vehicle tragal reference for the defendant taxi was confirmed on August 14, 2014 and around 01:46 on the same day, around 01:0 and around 01:46 on the same day; G's statements are consistent and concrete; G's statements are consistent, and G's statements are highly reliable and credibility without any reason, in light of the fact that there is no false testimony against the defendant.

H’s legal statement in the original instance cannot guarantee absolute accuracy of the time of the loss of the mobile phone regardless of the overall purport, such as the loss of the mobile phone, and it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s Naban trial force is 0.3 and 0.6 on the Dowan, and H talks with the police, only if the Defendant stated in the court of the original instance that “in view of the proposal, he did not accurately have an accurate satisf, the same shall apply when I do so.” In light of the above, H did not make an accurate statement as to the time of the loss of the mobile phone and on the grounds of the Defendant’s on-site absence certificate (alata) based on the Defendant’s unclear statement about the loss of the mobile phone and the vehicle traf at the time of the Defendant taxi.