The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the victim F and E of the summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal on the credibility of the statements made by the victim F and E, without reasonable grounds, and acquitted the above victims of lack of evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant consistently asserted that there was no attempt from the investigative agency to steals the victim E’s wallet from the time to this court, and there was a statement in E’s investigative agency and in F’s investigative agency and this court’s statement that seems consistent with the aforementioned facts charged.

First of all, F, who is a witness, had tried to deprive the defendant of E's wallet in an investigative agency, but he stated that three foreigners who were present at the time of appearance as a witness in this court were present at this court and one of them was stolen of E's wallet, and that he is not aware of whether he is the defendant or other person while driving.

In addition, the statement at the police station, the victim, was merely a statement that the defendant tried to steals his own wall from F, and it is not sufficient to recognize this part of the charges that the above evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was about the defendant's attempted to steals, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Next, the charge of larceny, fraud, and violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act is based on the premise that the defendant stolen the wallet owned by the victim F, and the defendant consistently denies the crime from the investigation agency to the above court. As such, whether the defendant stolen the wallet of the victim and used the Nonghyup Card owned by the defendant.