A. The Defendant did not have any intention to commit a theft since misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles merely contributed to the Defendant’s failure to report the bicycles neglected at the time and place specified in the facts charged in the instant case, and due to a refluor’s refluence.

In addition, the bicycle of this case is left alone for a long time, and is not an object of larceny, but merely an object of the crime of embezzlement of stolen objects.

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

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the defendant's intent to commit a theft, i.e., illegal acquisition intent, i., intent to use or dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property, or intention to use or dispose of another person's goods permanently does not require any intent to use or dispose of another person's goods permanently. Even in a case where possession of another person is deprived for temporary use, there is considerable reason to view that the defendant has an intention to acquire property, in which the use of the goods itself was consumed to the extent that the economic value of the goods is considerably high or has been abandoned at the original place outside of the original place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do132, Jul. 12, 2012). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, since the defendant found the bicycle of this case, which was occupied by his/her bed by his/her bed, and thus, it can be recognized that the defendant's intention to use the bicycle of this case constitutes an object of embezzlement.