The appeal is dismissed.

In the indication of the case name of the judgment below, "special larceny" is recognized as a crime of special larceny.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the part of special larceny that the Defendant stolen property together with G, on the ground that there was no evidence of crime, and affirmed the first instance judgment that convicted him of the part of the larceny included therein.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of special larceny.

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed the entire judgment of the court below, but did not state the grounds of objection in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Since the judgment of the court below is clearly erroneous in the indication of the case name, it is decided to correct it in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of