Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On October 12, 2018, at around 12:21, the Defendant: (a) fixed the flood blocking wall and two support units equivalent to KRW 4.20,000 in the market price of the victim’s ownership, which was installed at the building entrance of the victim C of the first floor; (b) removed the container; and (c) loaded the container onto the cargo vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written statement prepared in C;

1. Application of statutes on the site and photographs of damaged articles;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion is that the Defendant misperception of the blocking wall and support team for flood prevention (hereinafter “victimed product of this case”) is an article without the main seal, and there was no intention to larceny.

2. Determination

A. A thief’s criminal intent refers to the perception that another person’s possession under another’s possession is transferred to him/herself or to a third party’s possession against his/her will. As such, if another person renounced ownership and acquired it by mistake as a stolen article, the criminal intent of larceny cannot be recognized unless there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Do971 delivered on January 17, 1989). B.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant could have recognized that the damaged goods of this case can be owned by another person at least. Even if the Defendant acquired the damaged goods as the goods abandoned, it is difficult to deem that there was a justifiable reason for misunderstanding.

(1) The defendant was removed from a flood-preventive wall and support unit installed at the building entrance.