The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the defendant misjudgments the fact that the mobile phone was his own, there was no intention of larceny or illegal acquisition.

B. Since the mobile phone of this case is lost by the victim, theft cannot be established against the defendant since the mobile phone of this case is lost by the victim.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of a constituent element of a crime, the criminal intent itself cannot be objectively proved, and therefore, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts relevant to the criminal intent in light of the nature of an object.

① The lower court acknowledged that the Defendant had the intention of larceny at the time of driving a mobile phone by taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant’s mobile phone and the victim’s mobile phone cannot be deemed as being mistaken for the appearance; and (b) the Defendant’s mobile phone and the victim’s mobile phone cannot be deemed as being mistaken for the external appearance; and (c) the fact that the mobile phone

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant brought the victim’s cell phone due to the intention of larceny or illegal acquisition.

The appeal by the defendant shall be reasonable.

In the case of mobile phone theft, it is difficult to dispose of it and easy to trace it, but normally, it cannot be said that the elderly defendant has not known about the distribution route of the mobile phone in detail.

In addition, after being placed in custody of the cell phone without turning all of the cell phoness, and the personal information of the cell phone is exposed to the personal information of the person in his/her own name, and he/she did not act as a person who has an intention to larceny.

At the time, the defendant was faced with one disease.