The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely aware of the fact that the lost victim's mobile phone was found due to bad individuals' schedule, etc., and there was no intention or intention of unlawful acquisition of the victim's mobile phone.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehending legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) In a case where a defendant denies a criminal intent due to the nature of an object, where the relevant legal doctrine states that an indirect fact that has a substantial relation with the criminal intent in light of the nature of the object, it is inevitable to prove it by the method of proving the criminal intent, and what constitutes indirect fact should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the relation of the fact by using the detailed observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4947, Jul. 26, 2002). Meanwhile, the intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention of using and disposing another person as his own property, and the intention of holding economic interest of the object is not required. Even in a case where a person was deprived of another person's possession for the purpose of temporary use, where the use of the object itself is consumed to a considerable extent, or where the defendant occupies or abandons it at a place other than its original place, it cannot be deemed that the defendant has no intention to obtain it in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine (see, 2012.