beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to the embezzlement of stolen objects from mistake of facts, although the Defendant was written at the cellular phone cycle, he did not acquire the other person’s lost mobile phone device, such as the entries in the facts charged, even though the Defendant was written at the cell phone cycle.
B. The sentence of unfair sentencing [six months of imprisonment, confiscation (No. 1)] by the lower court is too heavy.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized to have embezzled by acquiring a mobile phone device lost by another person as stated in the judgment below.
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
1) On July 21, 2015, around 08:25, the victim reported the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aboard the subway in the tension of the Government Station of the subway No. 1, the subway No. 1, and reported the fact that he was lost at the office of the YYA. At the time, the staff of the office of the YAG was called his cell phone with his own cell phone, and the staff of the office of the YYYYY was asked to have no telephone from the beginning of the phone. 2) At the time, the staff of the sexual party who was in the place of the YYHH made a statement that he was forced to donate the cell phone that was not used by the sexual party to the sexual party, which led the homeless to get the cell phone from the sexual party.
However, the mobile phone that the defendant acquired was not broken.
3. The defendant reversed his statement that he was unable to use his mobile phone when he was first examined by the police before one month, and that he sawd with his mobile phone in the Dobongdong and franchising the mobile phone, and thereafter he was replaced by his mobile phone in his sexual organ located in his own government, while he reversed his statement that he was forced to use his mobile phone when he was unable to use it.