A. The Defendant was in custody of the instant land lock in mind to return to the victim, and there was no intention of embezzlement or unlawful acquisition.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was on board the bus at the time when he acquired the instant wallets from the bus.

In light of the fact that two passengers or drivers did not confirm the identity of the owner, and ② even after the fact that the defendant reported the acquisition of the wall to the police station, etc. or made efforts to confirm the identity of the victim, he/she may recognize the fact that the above wall was kept in his/her own vehicle for about two months until he/she is contacted with the investigation agency, and the following circumstances revealed by the facts and evidence of the above recognition, i.e., unless the defendant actively finds the victim, unless the defendant was investigated by the investigation agency, the wall wall of this case has no choice but to have the defendant, and the defendant stated to the effect that "the defendant, who was in the mind of receiving compensation later, kept the wall, but was forgotten for time without contact with the victim" (Evidence No. 65-66 of the evidence record), etc., it does not seem that the defendant obtained the wall of the victim and returned it to the victim, and both the defendant's willful intent to possess it or his/her illegal acquisition, and his/her intention to obtain it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. Although the unfair sentencing-related factors are not high-priced goods, the victim seems to have lost them and suffered inconvenience, and the victim was returned to the victim later, but this is not by the efforts of the defendant.

Other similar cases such as equity with punishment.