A. In light of the fact-finding, the Defendant is not guilty of larceny, since he fully pays the Defendant’s debt to the victim (B) and brings about C’s Bosch Rexton vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

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

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts under the relevant legal doctrine refers to the removal of possession from one’s possession against the will of the possessor of another and the transfer of possession to one’s or a third party. Although the right to demand delivery, etc. based on an agreement is acknowledged, larceny is established by performing an act of exclusion from possession against the will of the possessor, unless the possessor’s explicit or implied consent is recognized at the time of possession (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5064, Feb. 25, 2010). Moreover, an intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention of using and disposing of another’s property in accordance with its economic use, such as his/her own property, and it merely infringes on another’s possession, and thus, it does not necessarily constitute larceny, but it does not necessarily require the possession of property or the right to permanent ownership equivalent thereto, regardless of whether it is an intention to obtain the property itself or its value.

Therefore, the situation that the act of taking any object against the will of the possessor would result in the owner's interest, or the presumption of the owner's consent.