The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant thought that the mobile phone of this case was not stolen or lost, and only he did not report it to the police station, etc. as an adverse construction schedule after driving the mobile phone.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding guilty of the thief.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and the examination of the judgment, the fact that the victim D’s mobile phone was placed on the malone support unit in the front of the E store operated by the victim, and the defendant brought the mobile phone owned by the victim around 08:35 on August 28, 2016, and the fact that the whole of the instant mobile phone was out of the cell phone around 13:22 on the same day.

If the cell phone of this case is considered to have been lost, the discovery place is front of E store, so the defendant did not take such action even though he could easily confirm to the person, etc. in the store.

In order to confirm the list of cell phone calls that have been obtained or used by the police station, there were various methods for return of lost objects such as telephone to victims or their neighbors, but the defendant continued to possess the cell phone until the police investigation is commenced without going through such procedures.

Comprehensively taking account of all such circumstances and all other circumstances properly presented by the lower court, there was an intentional theft and an intent of unlawful acquisition at the time when the Defendant brought the instant mobile phone to the cell phone.

may be appointed by a person.

We do not accept the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.