However, in full view of the fact that the business of a new bank branch at the time was completed and there was no person who would request the search for a mobile phone, and the defendant would only bring about it to return the mobile phone to C, and there was no telephone contact thereafter, but there was no telephone contact, and the defendant thought that C did not find a mobile phone due to an excessive connection with the mobile phone, and the defendant did not return the fact that C was no longer used due to the excessive business, etc., the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty despite the absence of intention of illegal acquisition at the time, there was an error of law by mistake of facts.

2. The intention of unlawful acquisition necessary to establish the crime of larceny refers to the intention to use or dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property, excluding the right holder, and such intent of unlawful acquisition shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after taking the relevant goods, unless the defendant is led to his/her intention of internal deliberation.

The court below's duly adopted and examined evidence and its evidence revealed the following facts and circumstances, namely, ① in the event that another person is found in the course of conducting financial transactions through cash withdrawal and then there is a high possibility that the other person might immediately withdraw from the cash withdrawal to find out lost goods, so it would normally be reasonable to notify the relevant bank that manages the cash withdrawal immediately, or to make it known as such to the relevant bank or to include the same in the calculation of tax base as it is. On the other hand, the defendant brought a mobile phone by C, and ② thereafter, the defendant brought the mobile phone finding of the mobile phone from the police station around January 2014.