A. In fact, the Defendant alleged that he/she is guilty of having one unit of the victim’s old-type EL branch smartphone (hereinafter “former-type smartphone”) and one unit of the new-type EL branch smartphone (hereinafter “new-type smartphone”). However, the old-type smartphone was thought to be the victim to be the victim, and the new-type smartphone was likely to bring about the victim’s external fact to be doubtful, and thus, there was no intention to conceal property.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendant (the penalty amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of fact, the lower court: (a) stored the old-type smartphone in the TV channel in which the Defendant and the victim reside; (b) stored the victim’s cell phone number on the Gu-type smartphone; and (c) contacted the victim’s will by using the victim’s phone number stored on October 7, 2015, with the victim’s cell number stored; and (d) contacted the victim’s cell by text message, etc. around October 17:0, 2015; (b) the victim was aware of the fact that the Defendant had become aware of the fact with the old-type smartphone and requested the return of it to the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant did not return the fact that the victim was found in the office around October 20, 2015, and the victim did not return the new-type smartphone owned by the victim, notwithstanding the victim’s proposal.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant can sufficiently recognize that he concealed each cell phone, which is the property of the victim, by holding the old-type smartphone and the new-type smartphone owned by the victim, and not returning them.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake is erroneous.