All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time, the Defendant did not have any intention to obtain unlawful acquisition with respect to the instant pocket book.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (the 500,000 won suspended sentence) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that ① the Defendant brought about the pocket book that the victim left in his/her book on January 2012 (the Defendant was placed on the victim’s book). (The Defendant was placed on the victim’s book)

However, the victim had been placed in the book book from the time of investigation.

In the book, the injured person stated the disciplinary action against F, which is the father of the defendant's small father, at the time of the Saemaul Treasury, and he retired on his book.

- it is difficult to see it;

② On April 8, 2014, the victim sent the content-certified mail requesting the return of the above pocket book to the defendant (Evidence No. 15 pages), ③ the defendant, while working at the Saemaeul Regular Council on June 13, 2014, opened the above pocket book (Evidence No. 48 pages), and ④ the victim may recognize the fact that he/she was returned the above pocket book (Evidence No. 54 pages) on December 29, 2014 (Evidence No. 54 pages), etc.

Thus, the intent of illegal acquisition can be recognized (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Do1959 delivered on December 8, 1987, 92Do118 delivered on April 24, 1992, 99Do857 delivered on July 9, 199, etc.), and two years have passed since the defendant brought the victim's pocket book.