Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 00:04 on April 6, 2019, the Defendant: (a) stolen the victim’s vehicle in a way that: (b) the victim D sets up a car at the front parking lot of C industrial company located in Yangju-si B and opened a e white scaf car with the victim D set up and drop off a car in front of the C industrial company located in Yangju-si; and (c) the victim’s vehicle was stolen by driving

2. From April 18:30, 2019, the Defendant: (a) from around 18:30 to around 20, 2019, after drinking beer and beer 2 diseases in F located in Yangju, the Defendant driven a vehicle with approximately 700 meters of 0.154% of blood alcohol concentration at the victim’s parking lot in front of the C industrial company located in Yangju City, on April 6, 2019, and driving the vehicle at approximately 0.154% of the blood alcohol concentration at Yangju City.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Report on the situation of driving under the influence of alcohol and notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Criminal video (the defendant and his defense counsel claimed that there was no intention of larceny and illegal acquisition. The intention of illegal acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny means the intention to use and dispose of another person's property as his own property, and permanently refers to the intention to use and dispose of another person's property as his own property, and it does not require any intention to hold the economic interest of the property permanently. Even in the case of deprivation of another person's possession for the purpose of temporary use, it cannot be viewed as temporary use or abandonment of another person's property at a place other than its original one without the intention to return it. Thus, there is no intention to acquire it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3465, Sept. 6, 2002). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, since the defendant can be recognized that he occupied the above vehicle for about 240 hours without the consent of the victim at a place less than 700 meters away from the parking lot and thus, the defendant had the intention of unlawful acquisition and acquisition.

Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel are argued.