The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On October 5, 2013, the Defendant, at around 12:18, embezzled a white bera 2 smartphone in an amount equivalent to KRW 500,000,00,00 in a three-story parking lot located in Hong-gun, Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, 1042, and embezzled the property that he/she had on his/her own mind and without following necessary procedures, such as returning it to the victim.

2. In order to establish the crime of embezzlement of stolen property, the prosecutor must prove that possession of another person’s property is in fact or by law, and that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing an intent to obtain unlawful acquisition. The proof should be based on strict evidence with probative value that makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, there is no doubt of guilt against the defendant.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 91Do235 delivered on March 22, 1991, and 94Do998 delivered on September 9, 1994, etc.). As to whether the Defendant had an intent to acquire illegal activities at the time of acquiring the instant mobile phone, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, ① the Defendant consistently maintained from the police to the police, i.e., the period from October 5, 2013, where the Defendant acquired the instant mobile phone and sent the instant mobile phone to the payment of the instant mobile phone from the mobile phone at the bar, the Defendant started to look at the owner of the instant mobile phone, and to listen to the sound or hearing that the instant mobile phone will be located in the vehicle.

B. And D entered the place of residence located at a distance of 10 minutes from the lot, entered the instant mobile phone into the house after leaving the instant mobile phone, and went through fishing after leaving the said vehicle.