The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the CCTV images upon the summary of the grounds for appeal, the offender gambling the victim's bank and gambling the contents, and then throw away only the victim's bank. The form of the offender gambling on the CCTV is similar to the Defendant's body and face.

In the previous cases, the Defendant, one hand behind a shoulder, brucking one hand, and thief in the market, etc., and thief was committed by theft. The Defendant also shows the characteristics that the instant offender embling one another in the same way as the instant offender, and that the other hand blafeds.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, it is sufficiently recognized that the criminal of the larceny of this case is the defendant.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. On September 3, 2015, the Defendant found that the Defendant was not guilty of the instant charges: (a) around 17:02 on September 3, 2015, the Cheongju District Office No. 90, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, where 2:90 Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and 30,000 won in cash owned by the Defendant, 2 copies of the head of Nonghyup-si, 1 resident registration certificate, and 1 copy of a bank owned by the Defendant on the market.

Accordingly, the Defendant stolen the property owned by the victim.

B. The part revealed in the grounds of appeal as to the mistake of facts by the prosecutor was also at issue in the court below, and the court below can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated as follows. In other words, the direct evidence that the defendant committed the crime in this case appears to be the only CCTV image. However, it is difficult to confirm the CCTV image as the defendant, and the result of the national digital siren center video appraisal.