The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case even though the defendant did not steals the victim D's mobile phone, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) around 19:30 on May 29, 2015, the Defendant: (b) took advantage of the gaps in which the victim D saw a high saw saw within the Busan Northern District C Underground Housing (Ban) around 19:30 on May 29, 2015, and was in Australia money following the Defendant

gallon s 5 market value of 600,000 won shall be deducted.

In this regard, the escape was stolen by means of escape.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence used therein.

(c)

The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial for the above deliberation ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). Taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the facts constituting the offense of this case was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see it.

① It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was a criminal offender solely on the sole ground that the Defendant was taking charge of the victim.

(2) When the defendant takes place subsequent to a victim, he/she shall sit on the side of the head of the defendant.

F and the defendant sitting on the side of the bridge;

E is that the court below held that the defendant was placed on the side of the victim and that the defendant did not deduction his mobile phone from the victim's money.

The victim made a statement (the victim also).