The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, although it can be seen that the Defendant was aware that the Defendant had a principal agent at the time of having a door-to-door stay or was not at least discarded things, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s thief was guilty.

2. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the results of the CD verification, the facts or circumstances as indicated in the lower judgment may be recognized.

In particular, with the knowledge that the Defendant was not discarded by the winners of the instant paper, there are tear or strings generated during the course of the transportation of the instant paper boxes and travel bags, which are the contents of the instant paper boxes, and according to this, the Defendant is recognized to have disposed of together with the valuables collected by the Defendant without opening the boxes after the end of the instant paper, and without confirming the contents thereof.

These facts and the remainder of the facts found by the court below are consistent with the defendant's assertion that all of these facts were known to and brought to the effect that they were abolished by the end of the instant case, and that they were not aware of the fact that they were the alternative

The evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant has a thief criminal intent and has an abnormal person in the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The court below was just in finding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, and did not err by misapprehending the facts.

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