The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal in light of the defendant's criminal conduct, location, color, etc. of the cellular phone, which is a stolen victim, at the time of the crime of this case, the court below rejected the charges of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the

2. Determination

A. On March 9, 2013, at around 14:00, the Defendant discovered an empty cart used by D, his/her wife, when he/she purchased goods into a slot boat (samper) located in 626-7, Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon.

The defendant found the above empty cart because he did not prepare the cart in advance, found smartphones in it, found the goods in it, and led the cart by using the gap where D management is neglected.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's observers smartphone market amounting to KRW 900,00.

B. In a criminal trial on the summary of the judgment of the court below, the facts charged should be proven by the prosecutor, and the judge should be found guilty with evidence of probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the judgment should be made with the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662 delivered on December 24, 2002, etc.). The defendant found the carart as indicated in the facts charged (D’s calculation was made immediately). The defendant calculated the value of the goods and loaded goods for a long time, and it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant had been aware of the method of using the carart in large retailer frequently, and the defendant deducted goods from the above carart.