The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around May 9, 2014, the Defendant: (a) obtained a gallon lusular phone from a bus boarding Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and embezzled the Defendant’s thought that he/she had, without taking necessary procedures for returning to the victim, the victim was unaware of his/her name; and (b) embezzled it.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspect is suspected of guilt even in the absence of such evidence.

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823 Decided August 21, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4467 Decided July 24, 2008, etc.) B.

According to the health stand, the purchase advertisement photograph, etc. (up to 6 pages of investigation record) that seems to correspond to the facts charged, the Defendant’s advertisement on the Internet is deemed to have been lost on the Internet, and the fact that the Defendant asked about the market price of gallon 7th lux mobile phone as stated in the facts charged is recognized.

In this regard, the defendant argued that he had a high value of the mobile phone owned by friendly relationship with friendly relationship, as if she was lostphones, and that he had a high value of the fact that she was aware of the market price. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone exceeds the above facts of recognition, and it is insufficient to recognize that she was lost, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that she was lost.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325