A. In order to find out the owner of a wall that was located in a store, the Defendant merely found to find out the owner of the wall that was located in the store. The Defendant did not have any intention of larceny or illegal acquisition.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (the amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine does not require a permanent intent to hold economic benefits of an object, and even in the case of deprivation of a person’s possession for the purpose of temporary use, where the use of an object itself is consumed or occupied for a considerable amount of time or for a considerable amount of time, or abandons it in a place different from its original place, it cannot be deemed a temporary use (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012). 2) The lower court recognized the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012). In other words, the Defendant also recognized the existence of a victim’s wall located in a store as stated in this part of the facts charged, and the Defendant thought that the new bank, which opened the victim’s wall, would leave the new bank to the new bank, but it did not complete its operation.

However, it is difficult to understand that the Defendant settled the goods purchased at the above store and carried out the wall without any mentioning it to the pointr without leaving the wall to the pointr. ② Since then, the Defendant did not take any measures to return the wall, he did not take any measures to return the wall, was present at the police station, and returned the wall by receiving contact at the police station, and was first contacted by the police.