The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that unless the defendant brought the wall of the victim who was on the ATM device and did not return it to the extent of a week, it shall be deemed that there was an intention of illegal acquisition. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that it is difficult to see that the defendant brought the wall of the victim with the intention of illegal acquisition and caused the victim'

2. On January 24, 2014, around 16:02, the Defendant: (a) got off a vehicle set up in a locking parking lot at 365ccp. 892 in the 2000 credit union, 365ccp. 892, the Defendant: (b) got off the vehicle set up in a locking parking lot at the 2000 credit union.

Using the gap in which surveillance has been neglected, 2.60,00 won in cash owned by the victim, 2.60,000 won in cash, one national bank body check, and one new body check was stolen.

3. The following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the defendant heard from A the fact that he was able to go to the Dong office that he was the president of the enterprise who works as the main kitchen, and he was in charge of A's above branch office. He asserts that A did not bring about A's above branch office. A's investigation agency and investigation agency have consistently made consistent statements to the court of the court below. ② The victim was 260,000 won on the ground that he was returned at the court of the court of the court below (including Chapter 5,000 won, five hundred thousand won, and one hundred thousand won) but the victim's return remains 178,000 won on the ground that there was no money. According to the victim's statement, although 200,000 won was no right to go to the court of the court of the court of the court, it is hard to say that the victim's return of cash was not sufficient in light of the evidence that the victim submitted to the prosecutor's office.