beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not transfer the instant mobile phone to Smarket employees and left the same as it is, and that the Defendant first demanded the case fees in the process of returning the mobile phone to the victim, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant has the intention of illegal acquisition of the instant mobile phone.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below determined that the defendant brought only one mobile phone owned by the victim at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, but it was proved without reasonable doubt that the defendant had an unlawful acquisition intent by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, considering the following: (a) the fact that the defendant brought about one mobile phone owned by the victim at the time and place specified in the facts charged, and (b) the return of the mobile phone directly received from the victim who was suffering from about 20 minutes after the victim; and (c) the defendant returned the mobile phone directly to the victim and demanded KRW 30,00 won to the victim as the cost of repair; and (d) the defendant's occupation and form
The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that it was insufficient to view it.
B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the aforementioned circumstances set forth by the lower court, and ① the Defendant consistently stated that the Defendant discovered a cell phone on the Sctop and air ice in the Sctop in the Sctop market from the investigation agency to the court of the first instance, and brought the cell phone to find out the cell phone from the main agent when the telephone calls out from the main agent. ② The Defendant did not perform the act of cutting off the cell phone from the cell phone with the instant cell phone, and was suffering from the victim.