A. In the summary of the discussion submitted on October 11, 2016, the defendant's defense counsel of the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles added a mistake and misapprehension of legal principles to the effect that the defendant's act does not constitute a legitimate act and thus, it does not constitute a requirement for larceny since it did not constitute an illegal acquisition intent. Even if the defendant's act does not go against social rules and is recognized as a legitimate act, and thus, the defendant's act does not constitute a legitimate act. However, even though this is asserted after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal, it cannot be a legitimate reason for appeal.

The Defendant had the victim use part of the space of the D office space (hereinafter “instant office”) under the leased office, which was used by the Defendant, free of charge. However, as H, the Defendant, who was the Defendant’s seat, had the Defendant use the instant office, requested the victim to change the Defendant’s office.

In doing so, the victim moved the instant office to the small side of the above office, and the victim's kikiki (hereinafter "the instant kikira") was moved to the small side of the stairs coming to the victim's office.

Therefore, the defendant requested the victim to change the situation of the victim several times, but the victim rejected the request without any reason.

The defendant was operated by the victim

After notifying the KIKO that it was to move to the KIKO, the victim filed a complaint against the defendant, and then brought the case to the office of this case.

Therefore, the defendant had the criminal intent of larceny.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous or erroneous.