A. In light of the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, in light of the following: (a) the course and purpose of the thief’s act; (b) the type and quantity of the goods taken out by the Defendant; (c) the economic usage of the goods; and (d) the process of subsequent treatment, etc., the Defendant did not temporarily or permanently use and dispose thereof; and (d) there was no intention to obtain, or dispose of, certain substances or values; and (b) there was no further intention to obtain, a certain substance or value. (c) Interference with business was merely a mere assertion of opinion inside the company, not a false fact; and (d) there was no proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s thief’s act, which is the cause of the thief’s act.

B. The Defendant and the prosecutor asserts that the lower court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the property of larceny does not necessarily need to have an objective monetary exchange value, and it is sufficient that the owner or occupant has a subjective value. In this case, the existence of subjective or economic value is established in a passive relationship that it is not used by another person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007). Moreover, the intent of illegal acquisition necessary to establish larceny refers to the intent to use and dispose of another person’s property in accordance with its economic usage, such as his/her own property, and the mere infringement of possession alone does not require larceny, but is not necessary to have the economic interest on a permanent basis.