The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On October 10, 2015, around 19:00-19:30 on October 10, 2015, the Defendant discovered a gallon ju S5 mobile phone (the market price equivalent to KRW 900,00) that the victim C (the aged 53 and female) left on a cash withdrawal machine located in the Busan Youngdong-dong Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City, and embezzled goods that he left the possession of the victim.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant consistently held the instant mobile phone from the investigative agency to the present court, and consistently asserted that he would have left the instant mobile phone in order to give the owner a smartphone, and that he would have found the owner to D, who would be able to operate his smartphone.

B. The crime of embezzlement of stolen property by possession is a crime completed by an act of acquiring stolen property with the intent of acquisition, and the crime of embezzlement is a crime of realizing the intent of acquisition by unlawful acquisition. The prosecutor must prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of acquisition by unlawful acquisition. The evidence should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty even if there is no such evidence.

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151 Decided July 22, 2010, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the health stand in the instant case and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the instant court are as follows: ① the Defendant, with the instant mobile phone, sent it to D within a short time after the instant mobile phone; ② the Defendant was in custody without taking measures such as taking measures to dispose of the said mobile phone; ③ there was no evidence suggesting that there was no interest in the Defendant’s disposal of the mobile phone after opening the cell phone to D; ④ whether the victim was a cell phone, and the time thereof.