The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the fact that the defendant's statement that the main convenience store operator of the grounds for appeal brought brode to the building cycle without any speech goes against the very common sense and that it is difficult to believe the F's statement in the court below as it is, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, even though the defendant was found to have stolen E's brode, and there is an error in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. On March 5, 2016, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant: (a) purchased goods at the convenience store “D” located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si; (b) purchased goods at that place; and (c) removed the goods from that place; and (d) notified the Republic of Korea of an amount equivalent to KRW 10,000, the market price between the two places is also 10,000, in which he/she purchased goods from the convenience store located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si; and (b) stolen the goods by taking advantage of the fact that he/she knew that he/she was able to know that he/she was able to do so by mistake by the owner

B. The lower court determined that: (a) the F was present as a witness in the lower court’s court; (b) the Defendant did not ask or confirm the Defendant at the time when he was asked whether he was the Defendant; and (c) EB investigators did not state the above contents; and (b) the Defendant consistently from the police to the court of the lower court stated from the police to the court of the lower court that “the Defendant, who calculated and distributed the value of the goods, changed the Defendant’s name to B and B and C according to the convenience store operator; and (c) instead, received Brode without any statement by the Defendant with the knowledge that it was a good by issuing Brode.

As the witness F made a statement to the same purport, in light of the Defendant’s in-depth nature known during the Defendant’s interrogation process, the Defendant’s response is not entirely impossible or understandable, and ③ the Defendant received the said Brazil, and did not directly hold it, but rather opened and notified after opening it to the effect that he was included in the calculation of tax base.