The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 23:00 on November 14, 2012, the Defendant: (a) acquired one cell phone of “gallon ju City S2” that the victim E lost on the street near the D cafeteria located in Jeju-si; and (b) embezzled it by having his idea to have, without taking necessary procedures to return it to the victim, without taking such procedures.

2. Determination

A. In order for a crime of embezzlement of stolen property to be established, the intent of an unlawful acquisition of another person’s possession should be recognized as his/her actual or legal act, and the prosecutor must prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition. The evidence should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, there is no doubt of guilt against the defendant.

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

(See Supreme Court Decisions 91Do235 delivered on March 22, 1991, 94Do998 delivered on September 9, 1994, 2008Do6755 delivered on June 24, 201, or in the sense that it requires intent to acquire illegal property, it is the same as the crime of embezzlement of stolen property.

According to the evidence, the Defendant found the instant mobile phone without USIM chip at the latest night on November 14, 2012 and recognized that the instant mobile phone was not used for the purpose of telephone conversations, etc. except for the instant mobile phone chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip on November 16, 2012. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant attempted to dispose of the instant mobile phone before November 19, 2012, by receiving contact from the police and returning the instant mobile phone from the police.