The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant’s statement in the gist of the grounds of appeal is not consistent and is not reliable, and in CCTV images, it is not confirmed that the Defendant re-written the victim’s credit card inserted in the card, and there is no record using another person’s card. Thus, the Defendant may be acknowledged to have taken the victim’s credit card holding the victim’s credit card.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case, around 14:44, 2018, the Defendant, while settling the parking fee at the fourth floor underground level of the C board intersection in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, the Defendant: (a) obtained one credit card (hereinafter “instant credit card”) from the victim D, who settled the parking fee before the Defendant; (b) did not follow necessary procedures, such as returning it to the victim; and (c) embezzled as he/she had the idea to have.

B. The lower court determined on August 14, 2018, the Defendant discovered the instant credit card in a card inserted in a partly settling machine different from CCTV images in the police interrogation, and stated that the Defendant left the parking lot to the settlement machine (CCTV image does not have a form of entering the parking lot again), which appears to have written a part of the process of setting up the card on the settlement machine after receiving a police investigation after about nine days of the occurrence of the instant case. Thus, the Defendant’s partial error alone cannot be readily acknowledged. ② According to the CCTV image submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant discovered the credit card posted in the card inserted in the settlement machine during the settlement period between the settlement period and the settlement period, and inserted the card.