점유이탈물횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the summary of the reasoning of the appeal, the court below found the victim C's cell phone at the gallon juth of the cash withdrawal period and found the defendant not guilty of the facts with the intention of illegal acquisition, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant, with the instant mobile phone located within a short time, did not take measures such as: (b) the Defendant’s initial use of the said mobile phone but did not take measures to dispose of the said mobile phone; and (c) the Defendant was interested in the status of disposal of the mobile phone after opening the mobile phone to D; and (b) the Defendant was paying attention to the status of disposal of the mobile phone, etc.
In full view of the fact that there is no evidence to see that there is no evidence, 4. Whether the injured party was a telephone call on the aforementioned mobile phone, and there is no objective evidence about the time thereof, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant embezzled possession of the deserted object with the intent of unlawful acquisition.
It is difficult to see
The judgment of innocence was pronounced.
B. Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
subsection (b) of this section.
3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.