The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds of appeal is that two points of the damage picture are owned by D and is not owned by M. Thus, the defendant's act of selling the two points of the above picture to O without D's permission constitutes a theft, and the defendant's act of larceny is recognized, despite the defendant's intention is recognized, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charge of the charge of the crime of larceny is erroneous by misunderstanding

2. We affirm the judgment below in light of the following circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below; i.e., (i) whether K donated 2 points D or M to D or M; or (ii) no investigation into K has been conducted with regard to the ownership of the forest; (iii) whether the Defendant was in a position to judge the ownership of the forest; and (iv) whether the Defendant was in a position to judge the ownership of the forest; and (iii) whether the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the charge of larceny; and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.