On the other hand, the victim's clothes may be lost and brought to the place. Since the defendant could not be known that he had taken clothes from D, the defendant's act and the use of the clothing cannot be recognized as a causal relationship between D's act and D's act.

Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to commit an illegal acquisition or a theft.

must be viewed.

In addition, damage is not caused because it is merely a temporary use of one bill, and its value or existence is not damaged.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts charged in this case and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendant also asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal regarding each of the instant crimes, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court after explaining the legal doctrine regarding the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition.

Examining the circumstances acknowledged by the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, a thorough examination is consistent with all the circumstances and the judgment based thereon, and the defendant is D’s frozen and frozen.

Then, the lower court’s determination that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts, as alleged by the Defendant, on the ground that: (a) brought the victim’s clothes; (b) brought the victim’s clothes; and (c) brought the victim’s clothes; and (d) brought the victim’s clothes to D itself; and (b) brought up the victim’s clothes to D.

subsection (b) of this section.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.