The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant returned a total of 217 goods to this Ireland et al. (hereinafter “victim company”) during the month of June 201.

In light of the fact that the so-called “law rate” recognized by the victim company is 0.3%, and that the ordinary tidelands seeking return due to the loss of even one son, etc. do not exceed 30 tidelands during one month, it is difficult to deem the Defendant’s return act as a mere error.

Nevertheless, the court below judged that the defendant did not have the intention to acquire it by mistake, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case concluded a consignment contract with the victim company on April 1, 2010, and carried out the consignment sale and management of the goods supplied by the victim company at the first floor C store of the first floor of the 10th floor of the 11-1, Seongbuk-si, Seongbuk-si, Seongbuk-si, Seoul Metropolitan City.

Around June 2011, the Defendant filed a false declaration of the total amount of KRW 1,158,943 in the capacity of 217 products that cannot be returned with equipment from the victim company, among the products supplied by the victim company, with the total amount of KRW 1,158,943 in the capacity to divide or attach a specific code. The Defendant returned the total amount of KRW 1,158,943 to the victim and acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the said amount.

B. According to the police statement of D in the judgment of the court below, it is recognized that the defendant returned 217 goods from among the goods supplied by the victim, as stated in the facts charged, but the defendant divided the goods supplied by the victim with the criminal intent of defraudation or furnished equipment.

There is no evidence to prove the fact that it was returned to the victim by attaching a specific code to a part of it.

D. ...