The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On April 24, 2017, around 23:19, the Defendant found the victim E, who was set up in front of the D warehouse located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, as the market value, that the victim E lost (hereinafter “instant bicycle”).

Defendant 1 did not make any effort to return to the victim, such as reporting the above acquired property to the police authorities, and embezzled it on his own idea.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant, as a mere fact, has set up a side in order to find the master of the instant bicycle, and therefore, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is not guilty on the ground that there was no intentional or unlawful intent to embezzled the instant bicycle.

B. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court.

1) On April 5, 2017, the victim stolen the instant bicycle.

2) Since then, the instant bicycle was placed on the side of the D’s warehouse where the Defendant works and was left alone for 10 days.

3) When the bicycle of this case, which was left alone, interfered with the loading and unloading of goods, the owner of the D store, which had the employee move to the D freezing warehouse.

4) On April 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) moved the instant bicycle in front of a freezing warehouse on April 24, 2017; and (b) installed a locking device on the G side gate located in G in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul; (c) placed the instant bicycle in front of a freezing warehouse; and (d) installed the locking device.

5) The injured’s wife’s husband and wife discovered and reported damage to the instant bicycle in a state in which the Defendant was locking the locking system, such as the statement in the port.

(c)

Judgment

On April 24, 2017, the prosecutor prosecuted the Defendant’s act of installing locking the instant bicycle in front of the D warehouse with a locking device on G’s alley-ro gate around G around April 23:19, as the charge that the Defendant had possession, and embezzled the instant bicycle, which is an object of possession.

However, the foregoing.