The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal of this case brought about the cell phone of this case, since the victim C's cell phone is not brought about the cell phone set up by the victim C, but brought about the cell phone set up in the entrance stairs of D, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the defendant guilty of larceny, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor shall keep the facts charged in the instant case in the first instance, and the name of the offense in the first instance shall be deemed to be “Embezzlement of deserted Articles in possession,” and the applicable legal provision shall be deemed to read “Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act,” and the facts charged in the second instance (re-written judgment) shall be as indicated below, and the court applied for changes in indictment as stated in the column. Since this court added them subject to the judgment by granting permission, the judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court.

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

A. On February 10, 2014, the primary Defendant: (a) held one cell phone with the market price of the victim’s possession located adjacent to the victim while the victim C was divingd from “D” operated by the victim C in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu; and (b) held one cell phone with the market price of the victim’s possession located adjacent to the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

B. The Defendant asserts that he would bring a mobile phone at the entrance from the investigative agency to the trial of the party (Evidence No. 42, 43 pages). The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not directly prove the Defendant’s theft act. The victim lost a mobile phone from DNA operated by him to the first investigative agency, and use it by any of them.