The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant did not return the victim’s mobile phone to the victim for 20 days; (b) did not report to the investigation agency; (c) did not report all of the mobile phone to the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant did not know the method of filling because he used similar mobile phone units; and (c) the Defendant did not know the method of filling because he used similar mobile phone units; and (d) did not do so even if he could contact the will of the owner of the mobile phone using the acquired mobile phone, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had the mobile phone with the intent of larceny.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the instant facts charged was around 16:34, November 2015, the Defendant discovered a A7 mobile phone in the gallon juth of the victim C and brought it up at the point south 229, Pyeongtaek-si, the 2015.

As a result, the Defendant stolen a mobile phone amounting to 500,000 won owned by the victim.

B. The lower court’s judgment is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial, and that the conviction is based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to confident the judge that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do1568, Jul. 28, 2000; 200Do4946, Feb. 9, 200; 2005Do4737, Feb. 24, 2006).