beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Around April 21, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 22:09 on April 21, 2015, on the part of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant found one of the smartphones at the market price of KRW 500,000,000, when the victim D placed in the taxi in the private taxi operated by himself/herself near Dongjak-gu 161 Dongjak.
The Defendant, without taking necessary procedures such as returning the acquired property to the victim, embezzled the property he/she had on his/her own mind.
2. As shown in this part of the judgment, there are parts of the D’s legal statement, copies of the police interrogation protocol against E, investigation report (tax cardbook), investigation report (tax card card card card), and investigation report (tax card card card verification).
However, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to whether the Defendant acquired the lost mobile phone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
① The owner of the instant mobile phone stated to the effect that “D, if not in a restaurant located in the Gu, was left in the taxi.” It was thought that D left the taxi in the restaurant. There was no memory as to the point at which the mobile phone was last held, and it is not accurate memory as to at the time when the mobile phone was lost or known at the time when the mobile phone was lost.” On various circumstances, D, the owner of the instant mobile phone, stated to the effect that it would be possible to lose the mobile phone in the taxi. The time and place of loss of the mobile phone are unclear.
② The instant mobile phone
4. On the same day, the details of payments made at Fcafeteria 20:33 and the details of payments made at the 22:09 Defendant’s taxi are transmitted in letters. However, the number of call calls from among two absences that D could have been expected to have been on board the Defendant’s taxi are expected to have been on board the Defendant’s taxi.