The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the statement made by D, consistent with the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), is sufficiently reliable, the lower court rejected the statement made by D and accepted the Defendant’s change suit, and rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case, so the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On September 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 22:30 on September 4, 2015, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case was in the left part of other victims’ money at the front of the 5-3 platform in the direction of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Station of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City (121), where the victim C was under the influence of alcohol.

Hand, one of the Handphones (opphone 6) was detected to all citizens who want to steal the Hand, and was not aware of it, and attempted.

B. The lower court’s judgment is consistent from the investigation agency to the instant court to deny the Defendant’s attempt to steal Handphones by inserting hand as stated in the facts charged.

② In this court, the victim only testified to the effect that “at the time, the victim was locked, and brought about the situation from D,” and did not witness the situation at the time.

(3) At the time D, the defendant was unable to directly witness the scene of “the defendant put in his/her hand and her handphone.”

D's statement is limited to the location of the defendant and the victim at the time, the location and movement of the defendant's clothes, the statement of the defendant, etc., and the specific and detailed situation at the time is not objectively verified.

(4) The statements made by D as to whether the Handphone was in the Defendant’s hand at the time are inconsistent.

D The testimony was made in this court that “the color of Handphones is white,” but the report of occurrence (thief) is written as “opon 6 Blus”.

For the following reasons, the lower court is difficult to believe D’s statement as it is, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of the instant case.