Court acquits defendant of misappropriation due to insufficient evidence and legal distinction from theft.

The court acquitted the defendant of misappropriation, ruling that the evidence failed to prove he was present at the scene or committed the specific act of misappropriation. Although a witness claimed the defendant sold the stolen phone, the court noted the legal distinction between theft and misappropriation, emphasizing that misappropriation requires lawful possession without taking possession. Applying the principle of in dubio pro reo, the court decided that unresolved doubts regarding the defendant's presence and actions must be resolved in his favor.