Furthermore, it is unreasonable to punish only the defendant even though other persons have not taken away things left in the above place, but did not have been punished.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is that the place where the outdoor equipment in this case was placed, and the storage and management status of the outdoor equipment are only considered, the above outdoor equipment has an external appearance that could be misunderstood as an article that has been abandoned.

However, at the time of bringing the outdoor flag of this case, the Defendant, through D, was aware of the fact that “the above outdoor equipment would be brought about by asking what was owned by the removal company,” and without the consent of the owner, he was subject to larceny, and thus, the Defendant constitutes larceny.

B. The above circumstances revealed by the court below, ① the victim cannot be deemed to have renounced his ownership solely on the ground that the victim had left the outdoor flag for a long time on the ground that it is not the victim's ownership; ② the defendant sought the consent of the victim, but the defendant could not be deemed to have obtained the consent as long as he did not reach the end, and the defendant could not be deemed to have neglected the consent of the owner; and the fact that the defendant could not be deemed to have been aware that the defendant did not have renounced his ownership due to such circumstance; ③ the defendant could not be deemed to have been aware that he had renounced his ownership; and ③ the other people brought about the goods left at the above place.