Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

Defendant

B If the above fine is not paid, KRW 100,000.

Criminal facts

Defendant

B around 14:23 on April 17, 2016, at around 14:23, 2016, while drinking drinking water with A, A had a victim E on his/her side and found a gallon 4 smartphone at the market price of 800,000 won between them, and the victim informed Defendant B of the fact that the smartphone was located in his/her own bank, and Defendant B continued to put the smartphone into his/her own bank. However, the prosecutor reported that Defendant B was able to find the victim back and the smartphone around 14:34 on the same day without returning the smartphone to the victim, and carried it out at around 14:41 on the same day.

It is also stated in the indictment that “,” but the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be recognized, so this part of the facts charged shall be corrected to delete.

Accordingly, Defendant B stolen the above smartphone owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness E and witness A;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant B and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that Defendant B found a smartphone between the groups located side in D in the point of this case as indicated on the day of this case and found its owner and returned to the owner. Defendant B returned to the subway on the part of the victim, who received the phone from the victim and returned the said smartphone without receiving any consideration from the victim, and thus Defendant B did not have any intention to obtain illegal acquisition of the said smartphone.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant B became aware of the F in Yongpoon prior to the instant case, Defendant B became aware of the F in Youngpoon, and only A in G subway stations on the day of the instant case.