The defendant shall be innocent.

1. From around 20:50 on September 203, 2015 to around 21:30, the Defendant stolen the charge with one cellular phone flag (three-dimensional sign) attached to the victim’s cell phone located in Cheongju-si, and one male verification color (two credit cards, resident certificates, driver’s license, cash KRW 1.50,000) attached to the victim’s cell phone located in Cheongju-si, and between the victim F’s day and the day on which the victim F works in the kitchen.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, and in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the degree to have such conviction, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant even if there are suspicions of guilt, such as inconsistency with the defendant’s assertion or defense or non-competence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231 Decided June 28, 2012). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by the record, namely, ① there is no witness of the victim’s wall and mobile phone theft scene, even if examining the record, there is no video image taken by the victim, and even if the location of the damaged object is still unknown. ② The photograph taken out by the prosecutor is a photograph taken by the Defendant on the face of a hallway from a restaurant to a corridor at the time when the Defendant got out of a hallway, but it is difficult to determine whether the wall was identical to the wall claimed by the victim that the victim was stolen. ③ Even if the victim was stolen of one’s wall and mobile phone at the time of the instant case, there is only 20 customers inside the restaurant and there is also no possibility that a third party, other than the Defendant, was stolen of the victim’s wall and mobile phone.