The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. A TV set out in the summary of the reasons for appeal will be assigned to the victim under the condition that the office will be closed when the office is operated by the principal.
However, because the office is no longer operated, it has been notified that the office would bring the said TV to the victim through E.
As a result, theft is not established since the said TV, which is one of the property owned by the principal, has brought about.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.
2. The judgment is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: (i) the victim paid KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant and took over all facilities installed in the above office including the said TV; (ii) the above TV is indicated in the facility transfer certificate as the items of the facilities in parallel with other items; (iii) the victim has signed the above facility transfer certificate; and (iv) there is no other evidence suggesting that there was no agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant to exclude the above TV from the acquisition items; and (iv) the Defendant did not notify the victim in advance; and (v) the fact that the above TV was stolen with the victim’s permission, without the victim’s permission, is fully recognized.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.