A. Since the defendant found the owner of the instant mobile phone and stored it for the return cycle, the judgment of the court below which convicted him of the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

B. The penalty of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant did not take any measures to find the owner, such as the report of acquisition, while keeping the cell phone in custody for a period exceeding the month until January 7, 2013 after acquiring the cell phone of this case on December 2, 2012. The defendant first proposed the purchase of the cell phone of this case through the Internet on January 7, 2013, and the fact that the defendant could have confirmed the owner's telephone contents, etc. because there is no separate locking device on the cell phone of this case. In light of the above facts of recognition, the defendant was deemed to have tried to dispose of the cell phone of this case without the intention to return it after acquiring the cell phone of this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of the judgment on the argument of unfair sentencing, the defendant's argument on the grounds that the punishment of the court below is reasonable, since the defendant's argument on the argument of unfair sentencing is without merit, in full view of all the circumstances leading to the defendant's crime of this case and the following reasons, the amount of damage, the age and occupation of the defendant, and all other matters concerning the sentencing

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.