The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and inappropriate sentencing) is that the court below found the defendant indicted only for the crime of intrusion on a building and sentenced to a fine of KRW 300,000,000,000 to be guilty, and acquitted the defendant. The prosecutor, although the defendant was aware that the victim had bona fide acquired the wall of the damaged article, the damaged article was brought about the damaged article against the victim's will, so the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts and affected the judgment, and on the premise that the crime of larceny is found guilty, the court below's sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,00) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below, i., ① the defendant, while leasing and operating the instant clothing store, was requested to exhibit and sell the damaged goods from E to the store, and the damaged goods were delivered to the instant

② From March 2011, the Defendant, while transferring the right as a lessee of the instant clothing store to F, notified F that the damaged goods installed in the store were not subject to transfer as E’s ownership. However, in order to prevent the sales crisis, the Defendant agreed to install the damaged goods by August 201, and return them to the Defendant at the end of August 2011.

③ Since F, it was said that the damaged goods should be returned to the Defendant to the neighboring merchants of the instant clothing store.

④ However, around June 14, 2011, F transferred all rights as a lessee of the instant clothing store to D, who is the husband’s mother.

(5) The defendant shall return damaged goods by sending content-certified mail to F and D, etc.