The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles as to the acquittal portion, the F’s statement of mistake, and the F’s statement of mistake, which were made under particularly reliable circumstances, the admissibility of evidence is recognized pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Accordingly, in full view of each of the above evidence and the Defendant’s statement and the Defendant’s statement, and the settlement details of check cards, even though it can be sufficiently recognized, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of each of the facts charged on a different premise, there was an error of misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the acquitted portion as above is found guilty of unfair sentencing, the sentencing should be reflected in the sentencing, and that the defendant does not object to denying a part of the crime, and that the defendant has a record of criminal punishment several times due to the same type of crime as the instant case, such as assault and theft, and that the defendant committed the same kind of crime while being investigated in the preceding case, the punishment sentenced by the lower court (4 months of imprisonment and suspension of execution, 2 years of probation, community service, 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts

A. The lower court determined that the admissibility of the F’s statement and the F’s police’s statement cannot be granted on the F’s statement and the F’s police’s statement on the grounds of the circumstances as indicated in its holding between F’s statement and F’s statement between F’s 17 and F’s 3.

As the lower court properly states, (after the first statement on August 8, 2017, that the victim F is lost, the Defendant, in the process of the police investigation on September 22, 2017, called “the victim’s cell phone in the police investigation process,” and said, the Defendant would use the cream card while the victim is the knicker.