A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant brought the victim’s mobile phone to change his/her authority to operate the bareboat, and even though he/she was placed on the head of the victim’s vehicle in the state of the mobile phone case and returned it to the victim, the Defendant did not return the victim’s mobile phone.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2) In addition, the evidence produced by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant did not return the victim’s cell phone with the victim’s intent to obtain unlawful acquisition, without reasonable doubt.

Although the judgment of the court below cannot be seen, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the intention to acquire larceny, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion by providing a detailed statement on the determination.

In addition to the circumstances shown by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court are: ① The victim, from the investigative agency to the court below, had the victim's cell phone, and the victim had the victim's cell phone from the head of the victim's vehicle operation to the court below, was placed only on the victim's cell phone application without the victim's cell phone operation, and the victim requested the victim to return the cell phone to the defendant, but the defendant did not return it.

The main part of the statement is consistent and clear, and ② the witness I of the appellate court is the defendant's cell phone.