The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is only a booming room with the above hand room in order to discover the hand room owned by the victim and bring it to the police box near the place of the police station, and there was no intention to obtain the hand room.

2. On July 2, 2019, the Defendant found one of the following: (a) cash loss of the victim B (the victim aged 49, female) at the bus stops located in front of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu Office, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon; (b) KRW 7,000; (c) one resident registration certificate; (d) two physical cards; and (e) one of the instant facts charged; and (e) one of the cityless grandchildren, including one card.

The Defendant did not take necessary procedures, such as returning the acquired property to the victim, but did so.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property that has been separated from the possession of the victim.

3. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence in its judgment.

B. The crime of embezzlement of stolen property is a crime completed by an act of acquiring stolen property, such as lost property, with the intent of acquiring it, and the prosecutor must prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition, and such proof should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes the judge not to have any reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do974, Jul. 25, 1997; 2004Do8154, Jan. 27, 2005). Criminal facts in a criminal trial should be established based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes the judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, if the prosecutor’s proof fails to reach the degree of conviction as above, even if it is contradictory or doubtful to the defendant’s assertion or defense, etc.