The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged in this case, did not cut off the cell phone owned D by means of inserting it inside the scamper, as indicated in the facts charged, the lower court convicted him of the facts charged in this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won of fine) on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant, at around 03:10 on February 28, 2019, posted a cell phone (hereinafter “the instant cell phone”) equivalent to KRW 900,00,00 in the market price owned by the victim, which had been brought before the seat of the Defendant before the seat of the victim, in concert with the driving of the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) at around 03:10,00 in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and stolen the instant charges by putting the cell phone (hereinafter “the instant cell phone”).

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim, from the investigative agency to the lower court, up to February 28, 2019, up to the date of the lower judgment, c:10 on February 28, 2019.

At the same time, there was no mobile phone that was left before the knife in line with the Defendant's driving while drinking together with the Defendant's driving, so his cell phone was found within the Defendant's pedler because there was no mobile phone that was left before the knife in line with the Defendant's driving, so his cell phone was found within the Defendant's pedler.

“The” is a relatively consistent statement to the effect that CCTV installed in the restaurant of this case: ② The CCTV installed in the restaurant of this case was taken in the presence of the Defendant, and the image was taken in which the coloring objects were stored on the left strings; the Defendant’s mobile phone case is mixed with white and black color, so the object in which the Defendant collected on the left strings appears to be not the Defendant’s mobile phone, and ③ the Defendant appears to be not the Defendant’s mobile phone.