절도
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) was aware of the fact that the construction site work bonus was mistakenly reported; and (c) the Defendant reported the instant new shoes owned by the victim E, the same product as his/her new shoes, with the intent to exchange his/her new shoes immediately at the construction site, as he/she was aware that he/she was the work bonus; and (d) thus, (c) the Defendant had the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition
Although it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant
The term "right holder" means an intention to use or dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property, and the intention to permanently hold the economic interest of the goods is not required. Even in cases where a person has been occupied for the purpose of temporary use, the use of the goods itself does not mean a case where the goods are consumed to a considerable extent or for a considerable amount of time, or where the goods are abandoned in a place different from their original place, it cannot be deemed a case where they are temporarily used (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012, etc.). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted at the court below and duly examined by the court below: (i) at the time of reporting the new invention of this case owned by the victim at a restaurant, the new invention of this case was known to be owned by another person, and (ii) the defendant appears to have been owned by another person, such as the victim at the above restaurant, and (iii) without reporting the new invention of this case.