The defendant shall be innocent.

2. Determination

A. On June 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the “E restaurant located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon on the following occasions: (b) around 06:35, the Defendant: (c) stolen an employee “E” cellular phone; and (d) at the same time, F, his employee, mispercing the Defendant’s mobile phone, thereby thefting the Defendant’s gallon-based 3 mobile phone in an amount equivalent to KRW 1 million at the market

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the following grounds.

1) The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant received 510,000 copies of a white buphone owned by the Defendant from F, with a white buphone owned by the Defendant and 31 gallon of a white buphone owned by G.

2) According to the evidence of the judgment and the statement of the police statement on F, F consistently stated that the date and time from the investigative agency to the court of first instance, and at the place, two cell phoness and two cellular phones owned by the Defendant were found to overlap when two cell phoness are cut off to the Defendant at the court of first instance.

was stated.

Of the images of CCTV video CDs, F does not seem accurately to have only one cell phone on the face of the Defendant, but it can be seen that the Defendant saw a cell phone from F to one cell phone on the two hand, and all of the following can also be seen as white.

In full view of the above circumstances, it is not reasonable to suspect whether the Defendant was only one cell phone, solely on the ground that the F appears to have only one cell phone from the face of a cell phone to the Defendant, and it is not reasonable to suspect that the Defendant was not only one cell phone. The Defendant’s white phone owned by the Defendant F is 5.