The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the embezzlement of stolen goods by mistake of facts, since the defendant, after acquiring lost goods, endeavored to return them to the victims, but did not return them because it was impossible to find the victims, the defendant cannot be deemed to have the intention of unlawful acquisition. As to the larceny, there is no fact that the defendant stolen a mobile phone as stated in the facts charged, and there is only the fact that the defendant acquired it within the city bus.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted each of the charges of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the embezzlement of stolen articles by possession, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of each possession of stolen articles by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and investigated, and rejected the aforementioned assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons in Article 2 of the “Determination as to the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion.”

Examining the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of each of the charges is just and acceptable. Thus, this part of the defendant's allegation is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of mistake of facts as to larceny, the summary of this part of the facts charged is based on the statement that “the Defendant: (a) around May 2010, 201, committed theft by citing one of the non-fluor red cellular phones in the market price, which is the victim N in the erode in Seoul Special Metropolitan City L, by using one cell phone at the unfluoroned fluor, the market price, which was the victim N in the erode, owned by the victim N in the erode,” and that “N’s police and the court of the court of the original instance, after having kept the fluoral cell phone colored at the M’s own erode, who had been living in