The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error), the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant could have found the fact that he stolen Eul, although he could have found the fact that he stolen Eul, the court below found the defendant not guilty.

2. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487 Decided April 28, 201, etc.). The evidence submitted by a prosecutor to prove the facts charged in the instant case is that CCTV images, E’s investigation agency, and G investigation agency’s statement or statement in the lower court. Since E’s classification of the Defendant as a criminal was based on CCTV’s calculation at the following calculation unit after the confirmation of CCTV, G’s identification of the Defendant as a criminal was conducted by the Defendant, and thereby, G’s act as a criminal was confirmed after the CCTV was confirmed (as indicated in the lower court, Article 2 subparag. 58 of the Investigation Records). Since CCTV images were insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s criminal act because the Defendant’s act was not well known (as indicated in the lower court, Article 2 subparag. 48 of the Investigation Records), and eventually, the testimony by a prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged in the instant case.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts.