The Defendant did not take necessary procedures, such as returning the acquired property to the victim, but did so.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property that has been separated from the possession of the victim.

2. According to the evidence duly examined by this court, the fact that the defendant found the wall that the victim fells on the floor around 09:00 on November 19, 2018 is recognized.

Since the defendant should promptly move his life line purchased in the E market, he acquired the wall and kept the wall on his own part, and there was no intention to get the wall. In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court: ① The time until the defendant acquired the wall of the victim and returned the wall of the victim are only one hour and 30 minutes, so it cannot be inferred that there was an illegal acquisition intent immediately because the defendant did not make any effort to stop his work immediately after the defendant acquired the wall of others; ② there is no circumstance to deem that the defendant confirmed the money on the wall of the victim or lost the money on the wall of the victim; ③ The defendant's inclusion in the wall after the victim's wall cannot be viewed as loss of the wall, and there is no other evidence to find that the defendant's intention to obtain the wall is insufficient in light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

3. Conclusion: (a) there is no proof of the facts charged.