The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is the fact that the defendant brought the victim's cell phone, etc. as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, but it only brings about the victim's intent to return the next day and did not have the intent to commit a theft, but the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts constituting the

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly examined and adopted at the court below's judgment: ① The victim packages the goods purchased by setting a cell phone on the packing stand at the first floor of the home fracker set store as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below; ② the defendant discovered the cell phone set on the packing stand and brought about the cell phone at two times the surrounding area; ② the victim was breaking the cell phone at the location of the location where the cell phone was set on the cell phone, ② even though the victim was sealed at one meter away from the location where the cell phone was set on the cell phone, the defendant brought the cell phone as it was without finding or asking who is the owner of the cell phone; ③ the defendant obtained the cell phone immediately after finding the cell phone, and instead taking account of the fact that the defendant was put on the part of the victim's cell phone as indicated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant stolen the victim's cell phone, etc. as stated in the judgment below.

B. An ex officio reversal: Provided, however, the appellate court may decide ex officio on the grounds that affected the judgment, even if the grounds for appeal are not included in the grounds for appeal. Thus, if the defendant appealed only on the grounds of mistake of facts, the appellate court may reverse ex officio the judgment of the first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing,

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Do1021 delivered on September 11, 1990). ex officio, the defendant is currently a recipient of basic living, and is extremely healthy.