The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal consistently stated that he acquired the pipe obtained by F from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and disposed of it twice through the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that there was no such pipe transaction as recorded in the facts charged in this case on the ground that there was no mobile phone call between E and the defendant, and thereby acquitted the defendant, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor of Amendments to Bill of Indictment maintains the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged and maintains the following:

As seen in this paragraph, an application for amendment to Bill of Indictment was filed with the addition of the ancillary facts charged, and this Court permitted the addition to the subject of the judgment.

However, the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts as to the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, which is examined below.

B. On October 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) knowingly purchased the pipe 267 worth worth KRW 55,598,400 in the market price owned by the victim M, a stock company, which was acquired by F from E from the above D; and (b) knowingly purchased the pipe 267 worth worth KRW 38,000,000.

B) On November 16, 2012, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by purchasing the pipe amounting to KRW 27,00,000 in the market price, which is equivalent to KRW 39,406,379, the market price of the damaged company owned by F from E, which was owned by F, at the above D office, even though he was aware of the fact that there were 124 stolen goods. (2) The lower court determined that the lower court made a statement in E’s investigative agency and the lower court’s court as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, but the Defendant only changed to the fact that E requested sale of the pipe prior to the date specified in the said facts charged.