All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below: (i) the defendant continuously used the above handphone for a considerable period of time without attempting to contact the victim for four (4) days after driving the handphone, and (ii) although the victim continuously attempted to contact the defendant, the defendant sent a text message to the effect that "on the part of the victim, he would pay the case fee," the defendant would not have any contact with the police officer in charge of the case, and (iii) the defendant returned the handphone to the defendant only when he was contacted by the police officer in charge of the case while avoiding contact with the victim, and (iv) the defendant denied the acquisition of the handphone in the course of the investigation, and took the fact that the defendant acquired it only after hearing the police officer's speech to the effect that "the defendant would have any CCTV containing the handphone in this case."

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the defendant's appeal is without merit, and is dismissed pursuant to Article 191 (1), Article 190 (1) and the main sentence of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the defendant bears the costs of lawsuit at the original court and

However, in the application of the law of the court below, "Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act" is a clerical error in Article 70 and Article 69 (2) of the former Criminal Act before amendment by Act No. 12575 of May 14, 2014.