The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On November 21, 2013, the Defendant, at around 10:13, found one of the “LG options” smartphones equivalent to KRW 200,00,00 in the market price owned by the victim D, at a national bank cash payment machine (ATM) located in Daegu-gu, Seogu, Daegu-gu.

The Defendant did not take necessary procedures, such as returning the acquired property to the victim, but did so.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property that has been separated from the possession of the victim.

2. The Defendant asserts that while keeping the victim's mobile phone (hereinafter "the instant mobile phone") in mind, there was a concern that the mobile phone distribution rate will be worse, the Defendant left the instant mobile phone at the party room operated by E, which is the seat of E, while leaving the instant mobile phone, and that the contact with the victim would be returned to the victim. However, the Defendant did not bring the instant mobile phone to the intent to obtain it.

The following circumstances are consistent from the first police contact to the present court. The defendant's statement of witness E and the result of the fact-finding reply by this court are consistent with the defendant's defense. The evidence submitted alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant did not take the procedure of returning the cell phone of this case to the intent to receive the cell phone as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence.

① On November 21, 2013, the Defendant found the instant mobile phone, and 50 days thereafter, received the first police phone on January 9, 2014, and called “the victim has been kept so far so far to find the mobile phone so far, and left it to the front door of the passage.” On the same day, the Defendant presented the said mobile phone after being present at the police and being investigated. If the Defendant was willing to receive the instant mobile phone, the victim was a sufficient period to dispose of or use it.