Defendant

As to the theft of A, it cannot be deemed that the actual control over the victim's electricity was infringed only by Defendant A's use of electricity due to the characteristics of the electricity, and as a fire-fighting electric manager, the use of electricity with consent from N who has the authority to consent to the use of electricity was not constituted larceny.

In addition, the illegality of Defendant A, who is the sectional owner of the defense room of this case, constitutes a justifiable act or an emergency evacuation that does not violate the social rules, and thus, it should be avoided.

B. As to the Defendants’ obstruction of one’s exercise of rights, Defendant A is the owner of the instant E 9th E E (hereinafter “instant heading”) and the victim H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim H”) jointly possess the instant heading, but the direct possession is agreed upon by Defendant A.

Therefore, as stated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendants did not infringe on the victim H’s right of possession due to the Defendants’ act of removing the existing locking device of the door door of this case, and installing the automatic locking device after removing it, and instead, the Defendants’ above act constitutes a defensive act against the victim H’s illegal occupation deprivation City/Do, and thus, the illegality should be avoided.

C. As to Defendant B and C’s fabrication of private documents and the uttering of falsifieded Private Document, M’s comprehensive consent was obtained regarding the transfer of the instant shares and the change of shareholder’s name.

In addition, since M’s mother received documents related to the change of shareholder name through Q, the Defendants knew that there was consent to the change of shareholder name, and there was no perception that the document would be forged.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Defendant A’s theft.