The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) it is difficult to see each mobile phone of the Defendant and the victim; (b) it is difficult for the victim to take off all types of mobile phones on five occasions; (c) the Defendant did not receive the phone; and (d) considering that the Defendant’s husband’s act of leaving the mobile phone to the restaurant was an act after the Defendant and the horses, as he acquired from the restaurant, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the Defendant’s intention of unlawful acquisition, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. On April 14, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 18:28, the Defendant was an employee, and (b) around 18:28, the Defendant purchased gallon 2 mobile phones of the victim who was placed in front of the callon, while purchasing gallon dallon 2 mobile phones of the victim who was placed in front of the callon.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) according to the evidence submitted by the prosecution, the Defendant cited the instant mobile phone owned by the victim (hereinafter “the instant mobile phone”); (b) there is a difference between the mobile phone owned by the Defendant and the size, color, and shape; and (c) the Defendant’s husband, who became aware of the loss of the mobile phone, was allowed to use the phone on the mobile phone but the victim was sent to another restaurant, but did not return it to the victim; (d) on the other hand, the Defendant purchased the instant mobile phone from E, i.e., the Defendant purchased the instant mobile phone from the above E; and (e) left the phone after the completion of the calculation, it is difficult to view that the Defendant used the said mobile phone with the intent to block the said mobile phone; and (e) the Defendant’s husband immediately moved from the above E to the restaurant.