The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the larceny of the victim C among the facts charged in this case, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant destroyed the lock locker system of a simple store operated by the victim C, and thereby invaded into the door and stolen tobacco.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, one year of increase in the number of employees) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On April 22, 2014, from around 19:13 to April 06:40, 2014, the summary of this part of the facts charged is the victim C, installed in front of the Nbuilding in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul, before the temporary type store operated by the victim C, and the entrance door door lock was cut off by using draber so as not to be seen in the surrounding people, and then it was cut off with approximately KRW 60,000 at the market price of the suspect interrogation. 2) The lower court determined that the Defendant drafted the second police examination protocol [No. 160 of the evidence interrogation record No. 179 of the record No. 179 of the evidence interrogation], and that it was hard to find the Defendant guilty of committing the crime on the date of the examination of the suspect by making a statement to the effect that it was denied by the Defendant, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it was admitted as evidence at the time of the confession and the fact of the crime.