The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On November 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) obtained the victim E’s cell phone (LG options interview) price at KRW 780,000,000,000 and KRW 870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000

The Defendant, without taking necessary procedures such as returning the acquired property to the victim, embezzled the property he/she had on his/her own mind.

2. The burden of proof of criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial for a judgment is the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is based on evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not having reasonable doubt as to the facts charged, to the extent that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no evidence to form such a degree of conviction, the defendant is suspected of guilty even if there is no evidence to establish such a degree

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1716 Decided May 26, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do163 Decided November 30, 2007, etc.). Among the evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, the report on the occurrence of possession of stolen objects and the police interrogation protocol of the Defendant against the Defendant cannot be used as evidence of conviction as evidence since all of the evidence is inadmissible. The remainder of the evidence alone is sufficient to recognize only the fact that the Defendant acquired the mobile phone at the first parking lot, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by deciding not to prosecute the defendant under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.