The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the facts, only has been holding one copy of the judgment on the victim to return the above one point, and the Defendant did not have any intention to obtain illegal information on the above part.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Legal doctrine misunderstandings, even if the Defendant had an intention to obtain illegal acquisition on the first point of wall A as indicated in the judgment.

Even if at the time of the instant case, the victim possessed the above wall,

Since the above wall cannot be seen, the above wall is an object of possession.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which held the defendant guilty not as embezzlement but as embezzlement is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing (300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. On May 2, 2016, the Defendant: (a) stolen the instant facts charged by putting one part of the wallet, which the victim C puts up on the cash withdrawal machine No. 19, 243 o-ro 19, Pyeongwon Saemaul Bank, located at the time of the Government around 17:28 on May 22, 2016, by using the cresh of the damaged party’s seat as hand.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by integrating the evidence presented in its judgment.

3. Determination on whether a deliberation was made

A. The intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny of relevant legal principles refers to the intention of excluding the right holder of another person’s property and intending to use and dispose of another person’s property in accordance with the economic usage, such as his/her own property, and the mere mere infringement of another person’s possession was committed.

Although larceny is not established immediately, if there is an intention to infringe on the ownership of property or other equivalent rights, it does not necessarily require a permanent intention to hold it, and only the value of the property is whether it is an intention to acquire it.