The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant asserts misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, as well as with the intent to obstruct the victim’s discontinuation and collection of the victim’s disuse and removal, the Defendant is carrying the handts with the intent to temporarily use them for his own abolition and collection work, it shall be deemed that the Defendant had the intent of

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the thief on the larceny of three fingers among the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s determination on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On January 16, 2016, around 15:30 on the part of the charge, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft on the part of the charge of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles; (b) on January 16, 2016, on the part of the Defendant, the Defendant: (c) loaded three fingers of the total market value equivalent to KRW 45,000 (hereinafter the instant fingers) located in D’s house located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu (hereinafter the “instant fingers”).

(2) The intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intent to use or dispose of another person's property as his/her own property by excluding the rightful person, and the intention to possess the economic interest of the latter permanently. Even in cases where the possession of another person is deprived for the purpose of temporary use, the use of the property itself does not constitute a temporary use in cases where the economic value of the property itself is consumed to a considerable extent or where it is occupied for a considerable period of time, or where it is abandoned at a place different from its original place. Therefore, it cannot be deemed as a temporary use.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012). In light of the following circumstances revealed in the records and arguments, the intent of the prosecutor to use, or dispose of, the instant fingers for the purpose of unlawful acquisition, i.e., the Defendant, even on a temporary basis, by supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor.