At around 17:50 on May 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) completed the Victim F (the 63 years of age)’s work in neighboring villages; (b) was stolen by putting about KRW 400,000 in a cresh of drinking alcohol in the said restaurant; and (c) was stolen by placing about 400,000 won in a cresh of drinking alcohol in the said restaurant.

2. A thief’s criminal intent refers to the perception that another person’s possession under another’s possession is transferred to him/herself or to a third person’s possession against that latter’s will, and if another person has renounced his/her ownership and acquired it by mistake as a stolen article, the thief’s criminal intent cannot be recognized unless it is recognized that there exists a justifiable reason for such misunderstanding;

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Do971 delivered on January 17, 1989, etc.). Then, according to the evidence examined by the court, the Defendant: (a) as the place where the victim left the beginning of the instant case after the police investigation to this court, the Defendant: (b) was placed along with the abolition of the instant preliminary period and plastic recyclables, etc., and brought about a change in the place where the residents left the beginning of the instant case; and (c) the victim went into a restaurant after leaving the restaurant at the front of the restaurant; and (d) he stated to the effect that the place where he set the beginning of the instant case was suitable for the disposal of garbage every part of the restaurant; (c) the victim was purchased at around 8 months prior to the above preliminary period; (d) the victim could be mistaken for decomposition and decomposition; and (e) the Defendant’s statement to the effect that he had made a statement to the effect that he could be mistaken for this case.