The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor(s) is that the gas pockets owned by the victim can not be used as the original usage because the length of the gas pockets brought by the defendant well is short, and it constitutes a property with at least a subjective and small economic value because the shape, material quality, etc. of the gas pockets is an important know-how of the victim because it is used for the production of the heading in the system heading enterprise operated by the victim E.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant well saw the gas pockets owned by the victim and the Defendant did not have any evidence to prove that he left the gas pockets in the factory, and that the Defendant did not notify the victim or his employees of the reason that he did not saw or hold the above gas pockets in advance, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that he was well aware of the gas pockets that he was supplied by the victim, and that the Defendant would bring the gas pockets owned by the victim with the intent of illegal acquisition. Even if the Defendant confirmed the fact that the police officer was dispatched to the factory and left the gas pockets in the factory, it does not affect the establishment of larceny.

Therefore, even though the defendant could be found to have held and stolen gas diskettes owned by the victim as stated in the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on larceny by not guilty of the facts charged in this case.

Judgment

A. For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) purchased system windows from D Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant’s working company; (b) however, there was a problem in rubber gas pocket specifications in a fixed stand; and (c) the Defendant cut off part of rubber gas pockets in a factory by finding the victim’s factory as the victim’s factory, thereby cutting the part of the rubber gas pockets in