The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. Around October 11, 2010, the Defendant acquired the means of access by taking over one passbook (D) in the name of the National Bank of Korea (hereinafter “C”) and one check card for it from C at the National Bank Scattering Dong Office located in Seogu, Daegu, Seo-gu, Madul 333-2.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) there is a decision in the police interrogation protocol regarding C and the case in violation of the Electronic Financial Transaction Act by the Daegu District Court Branch of the Police Branch of the Daegu District Court concerning C as evidence of the above charged facts; (b) the police interrogation protocol regarding C is inadmissible; (c) there is no admissibility of evidence; and (d) the said judgment alone is insufficient to recognize the guilty of the above charged facts; and (e) there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above charged facts

2. In the Daegu District Court case No. 201DaMa1447 against the summary of the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal, the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of fraud due to singing, singing, and singinging, and the charge of this case, which became final and conclusive by the Suwon District Court on November 16, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive. In full view of the facts that the defendant was able to recognize that the defendant had taken over the passbook and cash card from C, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts that there was no evidence to acknowledge the fact that there was no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant had taken over the passbook and cash card.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the court below's decision regarding C, ① the court below's junior branch court of the Daegu District Court 201 High Court 1447 decided on C, which held C's interrogation protocol as evidence of guilt after C was summoned by service by public notice, and ② the court below's decision on C's interrogation protocol as to police interrogation protocol as evidence after C was absent.