The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts, like the facts charged in the instant case, was in possession of the victim’s cell phone device as the intention to return the cell phone device to the owner of the mobile phone, but there was no intention to obtain the said cell phone device.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. The Defendant had a mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case’s judgment ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on July 4, 2014 and became final and conclusive on September 4, 2014. As such, the crime for which a judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of this case are in the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and determined a sentence after considering the equity between the case where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and examining

The defendant's assertion of mistake and mental or physical disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the above paragraph is examined differently.

B. According to the witness's statement in the court below's decision on the misconception of facts, according to the witness's statement in D in the court of the court below, it discussed whether the defendant can substitute for the taxi with the driver's taxi, and D can find the fact that he was found to be in the original district of the Yeongdeungpo Police Station in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Police Station with the defendant aboard the taxi. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant had an intention to obtain the mobile phone from the defendant since he was willing to acquire the mobile phone owned by the victim and to pay it as the taxi cost

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

C. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mental disorder.