A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles intended to return the damaged goods of this case, the defendant is not recognized as an intention of unlawful acquisition of larceny, and the part of assault against L is not memory.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, theft under the Criminal Act refers to the removal of possession by a person other than himself/herself or a third party against the will of the possessor, and the removal of possession by himself/herself or the third party. Unless it is recognized that the possessor’s explicit or implied consent was given at the time of taking possession, larceny is established by an act of excluding possession against the will of the possessor, and in such a case, it cannot be said that the Defendant did not have an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition unless there were any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4546, Oct. 26, 2001). In light of the above legal principles, even if the Defendant intended to return damaged goods of this case, even if the Defendant had failed to take the damaged goods against the will of the possessor, such as the occupant or manager, it is reasonable to deem that larceny would have been committed if the Defendant brought about the damaged goods of this case against the will of the possessor, who is the victim and the manager of the goods of this case.