The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel is as follows: (a) the Defendant, in the “G” operated by the Victim F, committed an error of misapprehending the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds of the false F’s statement, etc., although there was no fact that the Defendant stolen one of the galthooptho S4 mobile phones.

2. Determination

A. At around 17:00 on June 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) during the process of changing equipment within “G” operated by the victim FF of Samsung C-17, Suwon-si, Suwon-si; (b) during the process of changing equipment within one’s mobile phone, the Defendant stolen one mobile phone of Samsung Ggal juS4, which was kept in the display stand for one’s own snow, in an amount equivalent to one million won at the market price.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that the Defendant’s partial legal statement, the witness F’s legal statement, the witness H’s partial statement, the protocol of interrogation of the Defendant’s partial prosecutor’s suspect against the Defendant (including substitute part), the protocol of interrogation of partial police officers against the Defendant, the protocol of interrogation of the Defendant’s partial police officers against F and H, the F and H’s written statement, the seizure protocol, the seizure list, and the internal investigation report (the use of stolen mobile phone devices

C. (1) First, we examine the evidence of the court below.

(A) Part of the Defendant’s legal statement, part of the witness H’s legal statement, part of the Defendant’s statement in the interrogation record of the Defendant, part of the police interrogation record against the Defendant, the protocol of the Defendant’s interrogation record on the Defendant, the police protocol on H’s protocol, and H’s written statement 1, enter “G” as of the date indicated in the facts charged and purchase one cellular phone from LL U.S. L. L.’s mother around November 15, 2013 by means of changing equipment. Since then, H, the Defendant’s mother, was using one cellular phone from L. K, the Defendant’s father U.S.’s father, the Defendant’s wife’s father, and one cell phone from L.S. 4 mobile phone from his purchase.