2. As to the grounds for appeal, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the investigative agency and the lower court, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charges of this case on the ground that, in light of the following facts: “The Defendant brought shopping bags to the same effect, did not find a victim or return damaged goods before and after the fact that the Defendant did not commit any act to return the damaged goods.”

In light of the above circumstances, the lower court’s evidence duly adopted and examined and the following circumstances, namely, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant was unable to return his cell phone because of the Defendant’s wind to be hospitalized in the hospital, but even based on the Defendant’s written confirmation of hospitalization with respect to F, it was confirmed that F was hospitalized in G hospital from March 2, 2017 to the 10th of the same month. In the end, the Defendant appears to have not paid any effort to return his cell phone to the victim during the period, and ② the Defendant, who frequently visited at the IBK Enterprise Bank, the location of the instant case, entered the instant request for formal trial to the effect that “(the Defendant’s use) was made more than 4-5(1) per day, such as deposit in and transfer of the company CD, and more than 810-10 times per day, such as the use of toilets, etc.”

In addition to the fact that the defendant seems to have been sufficiently given the opportunity and time to leave the mobile phone to the above bank, and that it is more convenient to leave the bank, which is the place where the defendant had difficulty in returning the mobile phone from the beginning, if the defendant thought to return the mobile phone to the victim, the decision of the court below is justified, and it is argued by the defendant.