The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), it is recognized that the Defendant entered the construction site as indicated in the judgment with intent to steal construction materials, and the Defendant’s above act by the Defendant was deemed to have commenced the commission of larceny, but it did not reach the commencement of the commission of larceny.

In light of the above, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the aforementioned purport, and the lower court found the Defendant and C’s act to have arrived at the construction site indicated in the judgment, including the fact that the Defendant and C entered the vehicle at the construction site, and that the Defendant and C left the vehicle at the construction site. At the construction site, the security guards demanded H to produce identification cards to the Defendant and C. The Defendant presented his identification cards to H at the construction site, and the Defendant found the Defendant not guilty of the charges on the grounds that: (a) the Defendant and C’s act was merely a preliminary stage of special larceny; (b) the Defendant and C’s act was merely a temporary stage of special larceny; and (c) the Defendant and C’s actual control over the materials owned by the victim was not considered to fall under the commencement of special larceny, i.e., when the commission of special larceny commenced.

B. The above judgment of the court below is just in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3...