The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserting the mistake of facts is merely a transfer of the instant goods to a safe place to prevent the sale price by selling each of the goods indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant goods”) owned by the victim Company D (hereinafter “the victim Company”) at the intermittent value, which is the director of the victim Company D (hereinafter “the victim Company”), and does not bring the instant goods to the owner’s intention.

Therefore, there was no intention to commit larceny and there was no intention of illegal acquisition.

B. Even if the facts charged of this case were found guilty, in light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime with intent to prevent the sale of illegal goods E, and there are circumstances that may be taken into account, the sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the allegation on the grounds of detailed reasons in the judgment.

In full view of the circumstances established by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant could have sufficiently recognized the fact that the defendant arbitrarily removed the goods of this case from the victim's store to secure the right to dispose of the goods of this case and moved them to his own possession. Thus, the defendant had the criminal intent of larceny and the intention of unlawful acquisition.

This judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. The instant crime of determining the illegality of sentencing is that the Defendant stolen the instant goods owned by the victim’s company during a dispute between its partners, and the nature of the relevant crime is not weak in light of the method of crime and the scale of damage. Meanwhile, the instant goods are the same.