A. misunderstanding of the legal principles (defendants) the Defendant had the bones in the cafeteria of the victim G with a view to temporary use of defensive acts, and did not have the intent to own it. Therefore, there was no intention to acquire unlawful profits.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Improper sentencing 1) The sentence of the lower court (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) The lower court’s above-mentioned sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) On January 16, 2017, the Defendant, at around 22:00 on the part of the facts charged, took the E and Si expenses on the ground that he was under the influence of alcohol in the front of the D while under the influence of alcohol in the street at around D, and used 1 copy of the new flac (28cm in total length and 15cm in length) of the market value, which is the victim’s possession, to enter a “I” restaurant located in H at the time of the Sihhn City operated by the victim G in the vicinity of the city at which the victim G was in the neighborhood, and intruded into the flac and stolen.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged in accordance with the evidence in its holding.

3) The intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny as a result of the deliberation by the political party refers to the intention to use or dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property, and the intention to possess the economic interest of the goods permanently is not required. Even in cases where the possession of another person is deprived for the purpose of temporary use, it shall not be deemed that the use of the goods itself is a case where the use of the goods is consumed to the extent that the economic value of the goods itself is considerably high, or where the goods are occupied for a considerable period, or where the goods are abandoned at a place different from their original place, it shall not be deemed a case where the goods are temporarily used (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012). In light of the above legal principles, the health class