2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is around 10:00 on November 26, 2016, the Defendant embezzled one clock (hereinafter “instant visibility”) with the Defendant’s own act on the part of the Defendant, and then embezzled it without taking procedures, such as immediately returning it to the victim, even though the Defendant was aware that the Defendant had a visual view with the victim’s possession and separated from the victim’s possession, and that the Defendant was aware of the fact that: (a) had a knbrid’s view on the fourth floor of the “C” building of the Busan Y-gu B building; and (b) had a knbrid’s view on the upper top of the knbrid; and (c) had a knbrid’s view that the knbrid’s view was taken by the victim.

B. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the following grounds.

In light of the course of the instant case and the circumstances leading up to the return of the victim, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone has embezzled the victim’s visibility with the intent of unlawful acquisition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C. 1) The crime of embezzlement of stolen property by possession is a crime completed by an act of acquiring stolen property, etc. with the intent of acquisition by unlawful acquisition, and the prosecutor must prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of acquisition by unlawful acquisition, and such proof should be based on strict evidence with probative value that makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the defendant's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do974, Jul. 25, 1997).