The defendant is not guilty. The summary of this judgment shall be announced publicly.

1. Around March 6, 2015, the Defendant, at the waiting room of the care provider of the first floor underground of the 783-ro hospital cancer center, and embezzled the Defendant’s clothes and cell phones of the victim C, who was under operation due to a traffic accident from the victim C, and the color plastic paper with a size of KRW 1130,000,00 in cash, “a request to keep the plastic paper in custody together with the carnet used by the Defendant” upon receipt of a request from the victim, while keeping the plastic paper for the victim, he/she refused to return the plastic paper by “a request to return the plastic bag” from the victim on or after the seventh day of the same month.

2. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts constituting the crime prosecuted in a single criminal trial on the board. The conviction should be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to judge to confluence that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine it as the defendant's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10316, Jan. 16, 2014, etc.). According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, the fact that the defendant was in custody for the victim by putting the examination on the part of the injured party as recorded in the facts charged. The fact that the defendant was requested by the injured party to return the above examination plastic paper from the injured party, but the victim was unable to return the above examination plastic paper, and in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone refused the return of the above plastic paper.

(1) From the date when the Defendant received the request from the injured party for the return of the above plastic paper in color, the Defendant stated that the Defendant consistently mistakend another person into the locking to be the victim, thereby drieding the above coininyl chloride.

Shebly, the defendant was the defendant.