The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. misunderstanding of facts as to the gist of the grounds of appeal and misunderstanding of legal principles (the defendant committed the crime of larceny and the intention of unlawful acquisition). 2. The intention of this court is to exclude the right holder from using or dispose of another person's goods, such as his own property, and to use or dispose of another person's goods in accordance with the economic usage. Thus, the mere infringement of possession alone is insufficient. Even if the object itself is an intention to acquire it or even if it is not so, it may be deemed that there was an intention to acquire it, even if it is only the value of the object, it is deemed that there was an intention to acquire it, and even if it is only the value of the object, it can be deemed that there was an intention to acquire it without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do3655, Oct. 13, 200; 91Do3149, Sept. 8, 192). 2.

(2) The court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do493, Mar. 28, 2000). The court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do493, Mar. 28, 200) comprehensively takes into account various circumstances recognized as indicated in its reasoning, such as the following: (a) the Defendant was carrying the instant bank temporarily set up by the victim while driving a taxi; (b) the Defendant attempted to return the instant bank to the victim within this frame; and (c)