The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the embezzlement of a stolen possession, the Defendant: (a) although there was a fact that he took the mobile phone, the Defendant found the owner of the mobile phone and did not have any intention to acquire it; and (b) there was no intention to obtain it.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court stated that the Defendant, as indicated in its reasoning on September 2016, 7 so-called gallon galloned by the victim Jina, stated, “The victim did not take any speech that she would have received the aforementioned mobile phone even after the loss of the said mobile phone,” and that “the Defendant continued possession of the said mobile phone until he was arrested at the police around February 2017.” As such, it can be sufficiently recognized that there was an unlawful acquisition intention by the Defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant’s assertion that there was an unlawful acquisition intention; and (b) the Defendant’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

B. Where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as stated in its reasoning, determined a punishment lower than the lower limit of statutory punishment by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s favorable and unfavorable circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, as set forth in its reasoning.

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal appear to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the lower court, and there are no new changes in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

The age, sex, environment, and motive of crimes shown in the deliberation of the court below and the party concerned.