On April 8, 2017, at around 20:0, the Defendant: (a) opened and intruded the above door door keys to the aforementioned factory, which was in possession of D’s factory controlled by the injured party in E (hereinafter “instant factory”); and (b) cut off 20,000 won in total of the market price managed by the injured party in the factory; and (c) laid down 20,000 won in plastic raw materials into the truck and cut off them.

2. Whether larceny constitutes a larceny under the Criminal Act refers to the act of removing possession of the object owned by a person other than himself/herself, against the will of the possessor, and moving the object owned by him/herself or a third party to another person (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4546, Oct. 26, 2001). Meanwhile, it is the intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny.

The term “right holder” refers to an intention to use and dispose of another person’s goods, such as his own property, in accordance with the economic usage (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3655, Oct. 13, 200). First, as to whether the Defendant carried the gold-type from the factory of this case (hereinafter “the gold-type”) at the time indicated in the facts charged, D occupies the gold-type (hereinafter “the gold-type”) at the time indicated in the facts charged, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court, it is difficult to view C or D as an occupant of the gold-type, and rather, the Defendant was in custody of the gold-type.

I seem to appear.

① The gold type of this case is owned by F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and F entered into a plastic goods supply contract with D and entrusted it to D.

The date of the contract stated in the contract for the supply of goods between F and D is January 2, 2017 (the date of the investigation record 24 pages).