The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On September 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 23:40 on the instant facts charged, and (b) on the first floor of the medical center of 18 Mapopo-si, the victim C sent a cell phone of KRW 800,000,000 among the participants, and (c) received the case upon D’s request to locate the main owner.

The Defendant, without taking necessary procedures such as returning the acquired mobile phone to the victim, embezzled his own idea.

2. First of all, the defendant found the owner of a mobile phone from D and found the owner of the mobile phone from D, but around that time, the mobile phone was delayed in time with the owner of the mobile phone, and it was under the circumstances that he would have to attend the scheduled lecture on the next day, and then he did not immediately return the above mobile phone and was stored in the car at the later time without returning it.

Therefore, the aforementioned evidence alone is proven beyond this reasonable doubt, in light of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the court in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and investigated: C’s legal statement that seems consistent with the facts charged in the instant case and the Defendant’s CCTV image taken by the situation around the time when the Defendant got a cell phone from D. However, the aforementioned evidence alone was proven beyond this reasonable doubt (the intent of unlawful acquisition).

subsection (b) of this section.

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant took a mobile phone from D around 09:00 on the following day to 12:00, the head of an insurance company’s office of education took an insurance designer’s lecture (it does not seem that the Defendant was in a mobile phone with another person, except for the Defendant’s contact with D or police officers, or by using text messages as follows) and that he was scheduled to visit a medical center on the same day again.