The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is inconsistent with the Defendant’s mobile phone numbering of the victim, but it was not an act of having the victim’s intent to steal as it was intended to find the principal person directly.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant had the victim’s cell phone with the intent of theft can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

(1) The defendant's cell phone with the victim's cell phone is the rest room of the hotel, and if the defendant wants to find the main phone, it was sufficiently possible to leave it to the hotel administrator.

I seem to appear.

(2) The defendant has come out of toilets to make the victim's mobile phone known to the extent that it can not be seen well by the contents outside the toilets, which are closed months.

This is difficult to view it as a person's behavior with a mobile phone to find a master person.

(3) No defendant has made any effort to locate the owner of a mobile phone for at least one week from the contact with the police to return the mobile phone of the victim.

The victim made a statement that he/she was aware of about 5 minutes of the fact that he/she lost his/her mobile phone, did not get his/her own cell phone phone on several occasions, and that he/she was informed that all of his/her cell phone was lost.

피고인이 휴대전화의 주인을 찾아 줄 생각이었다면, 수차례 걸려 오는 전화를 받지 않거나 전원을 끄는 등의 행동을 한 것을 납득하기 어렵다( 피해 자가 경찰에 휴대전화를 제출하였을 때 배터리의 상당히 충전된 상태였다는 것이어서, 피고인이 휴대전화의 전원을 일부러 껐을 가능성이 높아 보인다). ④ 피고인은 최초 경찰의 연락을 받았을 때, 휴대전화가 무슨 말인지 모르겠다는 듯한 반응을 보였다.

This defendant's attitude.