The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of G’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case is reliable, and the defendant’s defense and I’s statement contrary to this is difficult to believe.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected G’s statement, and accepted Defendant’s counterclaim and rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion

2. Determination

A. A. Around October 2016, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case was transferred to G for the purpose of selling a deposit passbook, cash card, password, Internet banking ID, an OTP card, etc. connected to the E Bank account (F) opened in the name of the LAD at the Defendant’s house located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Defendant transferred it to G for the purpose of selling the KAP card.

B. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case on the following grounds: (a) it is difficult to believe that G’s statement that seems consistent with the facts charged of this case is difficult for the following reasons; (b) the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant transferred the means of access to G for sale; and (c

1) At the investigation agency and the court of the court below, G, upon receiving the request from the Defendant to sell the passbook, stated to the effect that “B, around October 2016, received two passbooks, such as the E Bank passbook in the name of the applicant for the settlement of accounts, and E Bank passbook in the name of the applicant for the settlement of accounts, and around that time, he sold the passbook and paid the price in cash to the Defendant.” However, at the court of the court below, I sent two bankbooks, such as the E Bank passbook in the name of the applicant for the settlement of accounts, and the E Bank passbook in the name of the applicant for the settlement of accounts, around October 2016. The Defendant testified to the effect that “B lent the passbook to G only one month for the purpose of cash entry,” and stated to G on the same day on the same date, the number of passbooks at the time when the passbook was opened.”