2. The intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny was to exclude the right holder and to use and dispose of another person's goods as his own property. The following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, the defendant's company where the defendant works, purchased the system creative fastening unit from the victim's company, but compared to the fixed representative's gas diskettes in the same factory by cutting part of rubber gas diskettes in the factory where the defendant found the victim's factory as the victim's factory, and then the defendant was in comparison with the fixed representative's gas diskettes in the same factory where the defendant was in the factory. After that, the defendant stored the above gas pocket in the above factory and left the above factory, the defendant was divided into F dialogue with F, such as where the defendant used the rubber gas pocket in the above factory, where the above factory would be used, and around that time, the fact that F was cut off the rubber gas pocket at a place to be observed, and that there was almost little economic value in the above gas pocket, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone that the defendant had an intent to use the victim's own goods as well-owned property.

There is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is announced in accordance with Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.