Since the vessel of this case is owned by the defendant or the defendant's wife, it does not constitute another's property which is the object of larceny.

B. Even if the instant vessel falls under the ownership of another person, the Defendant believed that the instant vessel was one’s own ownership, and there is no intention to commit theft, as there exist justifiable grounds to believe that the instant vessel was one’s own ownership

2. Determination

A. On December 11, 201, the Defendant: (a) around 09:00 on December 11, 201, the Defendant: (b) carried the Victim C’s D (hereinafter “instant vessel”) in the place of the ship located in the open-si, Myeonpo-ri; and (c) stolen the instant vessel by walking along the Dong.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

C. 1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court to determine the ownership of the instant vessel, the lower court determined that the instant vessel was owned by G in the appellate trial of a civil lawsuit against the Defendant’s wife G et al. (Seoul District Court Decision 2012Na17589, Apr. 1, 2014; 2012Na17596, Nov. 7, 201, the purport of the said judgment is to the effect that the instant vessel was transferred to G by notifying each of the instant vessel’s ownership as security for the Defendant’s claim against the instant vessel, and that the transfer of security was established within a weak meaning as to the instant vessel on March 19, 201 and November 25, 2013, the lower court determined that the instant vessel was owned by G et al. at the time of the instant lawsuit to the effect that the ownership of the instant vessel was determined by the final and conclusive.