A. In a mistake of facts, the Defendant attempted to calculate a single stop for a short period of time in a horse, and the employee in the calculation unit used a single stop for a short period of time to help other employees to open the Defendant, so it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the intention of larceny.

Nevertheless, the court below found the thief guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability due to influence of drinking at the time of the larceny crime.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment and fine one hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In a case where a criminal defendant denies an intentional act, which is a subjective element of the constituent elements of a crime, the relevant legal doctrine cannot objectively prove the criminal intent itself, and thus, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts relevant to the criminal intent in light of the nature of an object. In such a case, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial facts related to the criminal intent ought to be determined by a reasonable method of determining the link of facts based on a close observation or analysis based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts are recognized.

A) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was placed on the calculation team by putting a single stop for a short time, and the employees of the calculation team calculated the goods of other customers (Evidence No. 44 pages). (B) The said employees told the Defendant that they would be protruding, and the Defendant was merely a way to calculate a single stop for a short time due to a few seconds.