The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the credibility of each of the witness H, I, L, andO’s legal statements can be acknowledged, and the Defendant could have stolen three TV sets owned by the injured Korean Mara Society on June 2012. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the person who was the representative director, was awarded a subcontract for the construction work in connection with the construction of the F Building in the instant case, and did not receive the construction cost after receiving a subcontract for the construction work from G during the instant period from around wintering in 2011, and the payment of the construction cost was not entirely made while exercising the right of retention on the said F Building. As such, TV inside the instant building was stolen.

On June 2012, the Defendant: (a) had two TV sets of 1,749,545 won in total and 1,370,000 won in total in the market price of the injured party and 55 Television owned by the Korean Mara Society, which was installed in that place; and (b) had two TV sets of 40,000 won in total.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment on the grounds that the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts as follows, and rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(1) As to the statement of H, the investigative agency and this court stated to the effect that “H made the first floor office of F building F in June 2012, 201, by the creditors of G Co., Ltd., the conference was completed, and that “H, upon completion of the meeting, made the Defendant, carrying three TV in hand on hand, and carrying in the entrance door of F Co., Ltd., on hand, at the Defendant’s RV car (RV QM5).” However, it is difficult to believe the above statement of H as it is for the following reasons.

(A) Before H makes the aforementioned statements, H drafted on July 29, 2016.