2. Determination:

A. On July 5, 2013, at the C convenience store located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant mobile phone”) around 21:45 on July 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) carried the victim D (the victim), who is an employee of convenience store, on the screen table, with a cell phone worth of KRW 200,000 (hereinafter “instant mobile phone”); and (b) stolen it.

B. The lower court determined that, in light of the fact that the Defendant, after finding the instant mobile phone, viewed the instant mobile phone as his hand even at the time of calculating the convenience store without hiding it immediately after finding the cell phone, and that the Defendant’s wife and the victim’s wife were contacted and returned since several hours have not elapsed since the Defendant brought the instant mobile phone, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone excluded the right holder and brought the instant mobile phone to the Defendant with the intent to use and dispose of other person’s goods as his own property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and that the Defendant was acquitted.

C. The intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny for the decision of the political party refers to the intention to use or dispose of another person's property according to its economic usage, such as his own property, by excluding the right holder.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 91Do3149 delivered on September 8, 1992, 95Do3057 delivered on May 10, 1996, 99Do3057 delivered on April 9, 199, and 99Do519 delivered on April 9, 199, etc.). In addition to the reasoning of the lower judgment’s acquittal, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record are as follows: (a) the Defendant consistently sees from an investigative agency to the lower court’s and the court’s court’s trial to drink on the day of the instant case.