A. In fact, the Defendant, who was living together with the victim, was off from his or her place of view due to frequent sexual violence with the victim, but left the victim at a convenience store in the vicinity of his or her residence so that the victim can recover his or her house. Thus, the Defendant cannot be said to have stolen the victim’s house and its content on the ground that there was no intention of unlawful acquisition of the victim’s house and its content.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the illegal defendant in sentencing (the amount of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent to obtain unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny as to the assertion of mistake of facts

The term "right holder" means the intent to use and dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property, and the intention to permanently hold the economic interest of the goods is not required, and such intent cannot be deemed to have no intention to obtain it in cases where the goods are abandoned at a place other than their original place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant left the bank of the victim to the employee of the neighboring convenience store in the neighborhood of his/her residence and notified the victim of the victim's cell phone number.

However, even though the victim's cell phone was in a situation in which the victim was unable to contact, it is also recognized that the defendant continued to evade the contact for about 3 days by the victim.

If so, the defendant excluded the victim and disposed of the bags and contents together with his own property, and there was an intention of unlawful acquisition.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the victim’s bags and contents were returned to the victim all of the judgment on the wrongful argument of sentencing.

However, the injured person shall be punished for the defendant.