The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) the victim was placed on the wall at the time;

10,000 won, 110,000 won, became nonexistent.

In light of the fact that specific and consistent statements are made, the atmosphere room of the environmental U.S.A.A., which is the place of the crime, is rare enough to access a third party as a space used only by the defendant and the injured party, and that the defendant has shown doubtful actions such as sensitive response to the detection of his fingerprints in the investigation process of the case, etc., the defendant can be recognized as having stolen the wall of the victim.

Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, it erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In addition to the reasoning of the lower court’s detailed determination, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the circumstance that the Defendant was allowed to access the victim’s wall access, and the circumstance that the Defendant committed a doubtful act as to the detection of fingerprint during the investigation process of this case, there is insufficient direct evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant stolen the victim’s wall except for the circumstance that the Defendant committed a doubtful act as to the detection of fingerprint during the investigation process of this case. ② According to the investigator and the statement of the building manager, who confirmed CCTV images installed in the stairs that was cut down to the 1st floor environment room, which is the scene of the crime of this case, on the underground floor, there is a pollution response room and security room outside the atmosphere room in the 1st floor, and it was confirmed that the security personnel had access to the 1st underground floor on the day of this case as well as the Defendant (the investigation record 18,66th page). Thus, the Defendant’s access to the victim’s wall was not corrected.

Comprehensively taking account of the above, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to readily conclude the Defendant as a criminal of the instant crime.

The judgment of the court below is justified.