A. The non-existence of the intention of unlawful acquisition was merely taken out of the instant animals for the purpose of temporary management for the purpose of taking protective measures against the instant animals, and there was no intent to exclude the ownership of the victim. While taking necessary measures, such as vaccination and treatment, was taken after taking the instant animals, there was no intention to acquire unlawful acquisition of the Defendant, and there was no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition.

B. In full view of the fact that the instant animal was not supplied as a normal food at the time of the lawful act, and that the internal sanitary condition of the livestock shed was extremely poor, and that the Defendant could not exercise the right to quarantine measures under the Animal Protection Act, and that the Defendant attempted to find out who was the manager of the instant animal, but could not find out any signs that could not identify the manager at the time, and thus could not take prior contact with the victim, the instant act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules as a relief measure for the instant animal in danger.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion that there was no intention to illegally obtain the property from the Defendant refers to the intent to use or dispose of another person’s property, such as his/her own property, in accordance with the economic usage, by excluding the right holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3655, Oct. 13, 200). In cases where another person’s property is used without the consent of the possessor without permission, if the use of the property was consumed or used to the extent that the economic value of the property itself was considerable, or the property was used to the extent that the property was not originally used, or the property was used to the extent that the property was used to the extent that it was not originally