절도
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles) is only to find the owner of the instant smartphone, and even if the Defendant did not have any intention or intention to steal smartphone, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) from around 10:00 on June 17, 2017 to around 10:30 on the same day, the Defendant: (b) committed theft with only one S5 smartphone when galloning 70,000 won between the two male toilets of the building E at D University and the two male toilets of the building E at D University, with the victim F, and with the victim F, with one gallon equivalent to the market value of KRW 700,000 between them.
B. The lower court determined that the Defendant stolen property as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the lower judgment, namely, that is, the victim’s smartphone was not a locker, and thus, the victim’s smartphone was contacted or could have contacted the victim’s seat. Nevertheless, the Defendant brought all of the victim’s smartphones to the immediate string, and at the same time, only the victim’s smartphone was in operation, and there was no communication from other places, and the Defendant did not perform the procedure such as receiving the said smartphone from the police station, and the Defendant’s wife, other than the Defendant, contacted the victim.
(c)
1) In a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial, and the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to conclude a judge that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined as the benefit of the defendant.