The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A victim of seized evidence No. 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the acquittal portion, even though the defendant could fully be found guilty of the embezzlement of the deserted article in possession, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the embezzlement of the deserted article in this case among the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by authority, where the reason for return to the victim is apparent is to be returned to the victim by the judgment (Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). In such a case, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, subparagraph 1 (Simplified imprisonment without prison labor) of the evidence seized was the stolen acquired through a crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and was owned by the victim D, and thus, the court below omitted the above seized articles even though it had been returned to the above victim.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the return of victims, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

Since the guilty part of the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained in this respect.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake as to the acquittal portion among the judgment below is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from November 10, 2017 to January 3, 2018, did not take necessary procedures, such as acquiring Samsung 2 mobile phone 1 (hereinafter “the instant mobile phone”) at the time of Samsung Gallon ju (hereinafter “the instant mobile phone”) with the market value equivalent to KRW 300,000,000 from the beginning of Busan Dong-dong, and returned it to the victim, without taking necessary procedures.