The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant kept the Dusa Dok Schi Dok (hereinafter “Dokdok”), which was owned by the victim B, and transferred to D the defendant. However, the reason that the defendant's strong custody was that the defendant was aware of the defendant who was in an internal relationship with C, the husband of the victim B, and that the defendant was aware of the defendant who was in an internal relationship with C, who was the husband of the victim B. In the event the defendant's strong return of the party's strong return, the defendant was only made a trip to Busan and kept the party's strong as a trip to D. Thus, there was no intention to obtain illegal acquisition as to the party's strong escape.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny of relevant legal principles refers to the intent to use or dispose of another person's property as his/her own property in accordance with the economic usage, such as by excluding the right holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3655, Oct. 13, 2000). In cases where another person's property is used without the consent of the possessor without the consent of the possessor, if the use of another person's property is consumed or used to a considerable degree of economic value of the property itself used without the consent of the possessor, or if the use of another person's property was committed at another place, other than the original place, or is occupied for a long time without the return without the consent of the possessor, the intent of unlawful acquisition may be recognized by deeming that the Defendant intended to infringe on his/her ownership or principal right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9570, Aug. 18, 2011).

Supreme Court Decision 83Do54 delivered on March 8, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 83Do54 delivered on September 8, 1999