The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) On October 5, 2017, when the instant case occurred, the Defendant had a very closely-friendly relationship with the victim, and brought ice back to the view that it would be necessary to make a subsequent calculation, and the settlement was delayed, and the Defendant did not bring the ice back to the intent to steal the object, and thus, is not subject to larceny.

Sheet Defendant did not enter the victim’s office for the purpose of larceny, but did not intrude the victim’s office against the victim’s will because he was inside the office with the victim’s consent.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (the fine of KRW 700,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The criminal defendant of the relevant legal doctrine is presumed innocent until a judgment of conviction becomes final and conclusive (Article 27(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Article 275-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In addition, the principle of “the interest of the defendant when a doubt is raised” does not specifically stipulate the Criminal Procedure Act, but is the major principle of governing the criminal trial, which is the basic principle of a rule of law inherent in the above Constitution

Therefore, the finding of guilt in a criminal trial should be based on evidence of probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, it is doubtful that the defendant is guilty even if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do11771, Feb. 26, 2015). B.

As to whether there was a criminal intent of larceny, the criminal intent of larceny is also subject to strict proof.