The defendant shall be innocent.

The Defendant, around 01:00 on June 23, 2012, 01: (a) around 01:00, the Defendant: (b) committed a theft by putting two Handphones on the table table of the victim D, the victim E, the victim E, who fluencing alcohol in the next table; and (c) flucing the Handphones of the women on the table table; and (d) flucing the Handphones.

Judgment

The defendant asserts that the victim's cell phone was drunk and the victim's cell phone was mistakenly known as his or her own or his or her driving, and there was no intention to larceny.

The evidence adopted and examined by this court alone cannot be readily concluded that the defendant carried a handphone of the victims with the victim's intention of larceny. Rather, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, ② the victim E who lost a handphone used a handphone to find it (if the defendant had an intention of larceny, the defendant or his behavior did not receive a handphone which was caused by the victim's handphone). ③ The defendant or his driver's behavior by telephone to the victims, "I would return a handphone to the victims at least 401 times in the early 401 p.m. F apartment apartment with the reduction of the taxi fee," and the victims used a handphone and fee for the victim's handphone, and ④ The defendant's mobile phone theft could not be ruled out in light of the defendant's motive and the victim's mobile phone theft.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325

(A) Since the accused does not want to give public notice of the judgment, public notice of the judgment is not to be pronounced.