The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On August 21, 2016, the Defendant, at around 01:45 August 21, 2016, stolen the Defendant, with one J 7 per cent in Samsung Gallon, a market price owned by the Victim E (60) holding D letos outdoor te (60 years), which was laid on the line of D letoble outdoor te (60,000,000 won).

2. Determination

A. According to evidence, the fact that the defendant left one cell phone owned by the victim, such as the facts in the facts charged, the fact that the victim was aware that there was no cell phone, and the defendant was called by the phone number, and the defendant was called to the Pharmaceutical Dong office to receive a mobile phone, and the defendant was called to the Pharmaceutical Dong office to receive a mobile phone, and the fact that the defendant was not called after the victim went to the Pharmaceutical Dong office, and it is recognized that the victim did not receive a mobile phone thereafter, and the victim was found to have carried the mobile phone at this time

was done.

In addition to the statement "," there is a doubt that the defendant does not intentionally leave the mobile phone to be stolen at the time.

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances admitted by evidence, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant was aware of the fact that the defendant was driving together and had a mobile phone, and thus, there is a part of the defendant's behavior.

Even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the facts charged in this case is beyond reasonable doubt

It is difficult to see it.

1) On August 21, 2016, at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, Defendant’s tables and the victim’s cell phones were adjacent to a distance not far away from 1m. The Defendant had a considerable amount of drinking, around 01:45, around August 21, 2016, at the time of the occurrence of the instant case.

2) The Defendant, citing the victim’s mobile phone from the phone, received a phone call from the victim, and did not turn off all of the mobile phone even after she left the phone, which is difficult to view as the general behavior of the person who stolen the mobile phone.

3) The Defendant’s female FF