Defendant, on March 11, 2014, at Suwon-si, at Suwon-si, around 13:00

D. (State) within the EE office, the victim F was stolen by taking advantage of the gaps in which the victim F’s surveillance was neglected, who is the president, the victim’s president, in the office, in the amount of KRW 1,300,000.

2. At the time of judgment, the Defendant consented to the victim.

The facts charged are denied that there was no defendant's intent to obtain illegal permission.

In the case of larceny, even if the intent of acquiring the property permanently is not required to possess the economic benefit of the property permanently, the intention of acquiring the property or the equivalent right is to acquire only the value of the property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Do2394, Oct. 13, 1981). In a case where the property of another person is used without the consent of the possessor without the consent of the possessor, if the use of the property of another person is consumed to the extent that the economic value of the property itself was significant, or after the property was used to the extent that it was not the original one, or if the property was discarded to another place, but the property was not the original one, or the property was occupied for the long time without the return, the intention of acquiring the property or the equivalent right can be recognized by deeming that the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7819 Decided March 9, 2006 and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9570 Decided August 18, 201, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, namely, ① the Defendant retired from the company office around March 10, 2014, and agreed with the victim to the effect that “the Defendant transferred and taken over materials in the company Nowon-gu, which the Defendant used for ordinary business at the company office on the day or Triday of that week,” and ② the victim can do so with the Defendant at the time of agreement.