A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, although the Defendant acquired the instant mobile phone, the said mobile phone was lost from the possession of the victim, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that it was lost and brought about the aforementioned mobile phone. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant had the intention of theft.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 500,000 sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, it is recognized that the victim purchased subway tickets at the boarding ticket sales machine installed in Ansan Franc Station, while leaving the instant mobile phone at the boarding ticket sales machine, and left the subway station to open the subway station at the boarding ticket sales machine, and immediately returned to the subway station. However, it is recognized that the victim reported the loss because there was no cell phone.

When comprehensively considering the developments of the instant case, the distance between the time period during which the victimized person left the said mobile phone and found the said mobile phone again, and the distance between the time of selling tickets and the opening of the opening, the possession of the victim of the said mobile phone was still in existence.

It is reasonable to view it.

B. In consideration of the fact that the instant mobile phone was placed on the ticket issuing machine, as seen earlier, the Defendant was aware that at least the Defendant was able to see the said mobile phone at the time when she brought about the said mobile phone.

Since it is reasonable to see that the defendant had the intention of larceny, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had the intention of larceny.

Therefore, the court below is just in finding guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles,

(c).