The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by mistakeing the instant mobile phone as an article, did not have any intention of embezzlement or illegal acquisition, merely caused the instant mobile phone to be mistaken.

B. In light of the developments leading up to the instant case’s sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (amounting to KRW 200,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court’s reasoning based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts reveals that: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence were revealed by the lower court; (b) the Defendant: (c) took play in the police station; (d) discovered and found a mobile phone that fell away from his location; (e) it is difficult to readily conclude that the mobile phone was an object thrown out solely on the ground that the main owner does not get out within a short time; and (e) there is little case in the case of the mobile phone, there is no personal information stored; and (b) the mobile phone of this case was easily known that children were used in appearance on the basis of a Myanmar; and (c) considering that the mobile phone was far away from the play site, it appears that the Defendant could have sufficiently predicted that the mobile phone of this case was lost. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had been aware that the mobile phone was lost.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

B. The Defendant agreed with the victim to determine the unfair argument of sentencing, and the Defendant did not have any history of punishment in the Republic of Korea, but the above circumstances appear to have been already considered in the sentencing of the lower court, the Defendant appears to have expressed different arguments from the facts, and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and post-crime.