The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, on September 4, 2014, carried out the following procedures: (a) around 20:10, the market value at which the injured party E (the age of 54) lost from the street “CD” to the street around 20:0,000, without following necessary procedures, such as discovering a cell phone in an amount equivalent to KRW 900,000,00,000; and (b) returning the injured party.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property that has been separated from the possession of the victim.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by a prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt is against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823 Decided August 21, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4467 Decided July 24, 2008, etc.) B.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant appeared at the place where the victim left the cell phone at the time when the victim claimed that he was immediately after the cell phone was set up, and the fact is recognized.

However, the defendant asserts that food that had been cited in the front of the time was included in the bags. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is the place where the victim lost a mobile phone, and the victim's cell phone remains at the time when the defendant got out, and it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was able to make a cell phone by bending the victim's cell phone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the judgment of not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act is rendered as per Disposition.