The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the consistent statement by the victim of the grounds for appeal, the lower court, which did not recognize the crime as stated in the facts charged, was erroneous in matters of mistake of facts.

2. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged cannot be proven without reasonable doubt, on the grounds that the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed in detail, the possibility that there was an agreement on return between the Defendant and the victim D cannot be ruled out, and even if there was no agreement on domestic affairs, it cannot be ruled out that the Defendant was aware that there was an agreement, and that there was no possibility that the Defendant would have taken a new drick with the new drick.

Considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of misconception of facts by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor's above assertion is not accepted.

Even though it is consistently stated that the victim has no permission to bring the victim a new dives to the defendant, it is questionable whether the victim requested the statement to the defendant in the following parts of the victim's statement without consistency or in some objective evidence, and it seems that the victim did not confirm the date and time of purchase through electronic sales records, and the victim's statement alone does not lead to the new dives without the victim's exchange agreement with the victim.

(1) The injured party, in court of the original instance, left the goods used by him without permission, and brought them into the original court.

(63 pages of the trial record) stated to the effect that the court below made a statement. (2) The presiding judge of the court below requires the procedure to confirm the specification and card receipt to the victim or to ask the victim about what the company AS policy is, and through this procedure, the store in question.