The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) It cannot be viewed as larceny because it is merely a lost article (No. 1). (2) The Defendant discovered the instant USB camera and stored it as an intention to bring it to the civil petitioner’s counter. Thus, there is a acquisition intent.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (i.e., evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; the size, management status, and existence of CCTV in the public service center in the Seoul Office of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, which is the head of the crime, the instant USB, which contained patent data, etc. on a civil petitioner-only computer, is occupied by the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

As can be seen, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit on different premise.

In light of the following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the second ground for appeal, i.e., consultation with the employee of the Korean Intellectual Property Office on the finding of the USB, but did not take part in the fluencies, and did not take part in the fluencies to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and the visit to the Korean Intellectual Property Office after the opening of the investigation to return the USB, and the fact that only the USB cover was returned even after the commencement of the investigation to the Korean Intellectual Property Office (after the criminal conciliation stage, the USB returned at the time of the criminal conciliation stage) is sufficient to recognize the defendant's intent of theft. Thus, this part

B. In full view of various circumstances, such as the relationship with the victim, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, intelligence and environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment seems to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.