If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On December 19:07, 2015, the Defendant acquired one mobile phone (in gallon ju, a gallon ju, a gallon ju, and a market value of one million won) set by the victim E in front of the 'D driving school located in Pyeongtaek-si C' on the street, and did not take necessary procedures such as returning it to the victim.

In this way, the defendant embezzled the property that has escaped from the possession of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. E statements;

1. Responses with data verifying the communications, replies with G communication confirmation data, and indictments;

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the issue of the investigation report (a copy of H fee operation record, and attachment of the same summary order by the suspect), the fact that the victim lost a mobile phone after the victim gets on the taxi driven by the defendant, and the fact that the injured person gets off his/her cell phone number from the lost mobile phone number immediately after the victim gets on the taxi and calls with the cell phone owner.

In addition, the victim said that the person who received the phone is currently in operation into another area, and that the person who received the phone was a string of the taxi engineer.

In light of the victim's attitude to make statements in the court, the victim's credibility is high.

The defendant is a female passenger immediately after the victim's getting off, and there is no possibility that the taxi passenger was sent with the defendant after he/she acquired a mobile phone from the back seat.

If the Defendant did not embezzled a mobile phone, it is reasonable doubt that the Defendant embezzled the mobile phone after a third party who gets off the taxi immediately after getting off the taxi and gets out of the taxi, such as “in operation of customers on board and later, will return the phone.” However, it is difficult to view this as a reasonable doubt.

In addition, the defendant is a guest on September 21, 2015, which was two months before the date of the occurrence of the instant case from December 3, 2015.