The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On August 14, 2019, the Defendant, at the entrance of the toilet of the third floor of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 09:44, he/she found that he/she would return a mobile phone of “galgal lusium S9” (hereinafter “instant mobile phone”) equivalent to KRW 800,000,000 at the market price where the victim B (the age of 35) was lost, to the victim who is the owner of the instant mobile phone, and then embezzled his/her idea without taking necessary measures, such as returning it to the victim.

2. In a judgment, criminal facts should be acknowledged based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to the prosecutor’s above conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense that has not been delayed, it should be determined based on the defendant’s interest.

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 201). According to the evidence duly adopted by this court, the victim: (a) fell the instant mobile phone from the entrance of the 23rd floor, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, the 09:32 on the day of the instant case; (b) found the instant mobile phone at around 09:43; (c) the Defendant’s daily operation of the Defendant discovered the instant mobile phone at around 09:43; (c) the victim called the instant mobile phone number and sent the instant mobile phone number to the sending station; and (d) the Defendant sent the instant mobile phone at the time of the instant mobile phone number and sent the instant mobile phone to the sending station at around 5:00,000 again; and (d) the fact that the instant mobile phone was completely closed.

However, on this issue.