The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. On April 16, 2014, from around 10:00 to 10:00 on April 16, 2014, the Defendant used gas equivalent to KRW 300,00,00 of the market price owned by the victim, by intending to suspend gas supply by marking the seal on the ground of delinquency in gas charges by the victim E, who is an employee of the victim YCO Urban Gas Corporation, and installing a fixed device, and installing the fixed device, and cutting urban gas valves.

2. The lower court determined that “E, an employee of the Yco urban gas company that reported the Defendant to the police, was an employee of the police, and after discovering the fact that urban gas was actually used after the gas valve was damaged by the YA, and the gas valve was opened, the lower court did not visit DSB operated by the Defendant in detail to verify who actually committed such act, and did not investigate the following circumstances, etc. of the occurrence of the above case. However, the Defendant was a person who entered into an urban gas supply contract with the aforementioned company, and the Defendant was a person who used urban gas supply contract with DSB operated by the said company, and reported the Defendant by inferredly considering that the details of using urban gas appear in the gas measurement machine.” Although the Defendant was a person who entered into the gas supply contract with the above company, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant committed urban gas theft without permission by reason of such circumstance, such as the Defendant’s change in the gas gauge, and the possibility of gas theft by the Defendant cannot be ruled out by the evidence presented by the prosecutor.