The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Whether the Defendant concealed clothing (hereinafter “the instant lawsuit No. 1”) was serving in G (hereinafter “the instant store”) which is a store of the victim corporation D (hereinafter “victim”) located on the second underground level of F department store V, and located on the second underground floor.

While the Defendant had kept the clothes indicated in the facts stated in the lower judgment, which are the clothing of the above store (hereinafter “instant clothing”) for resale or return during the work at the above store, but was stored in the second floor inspection room and the third floor equipment storage room underground as a narrow storage room on the second underground floor.

The head of the 2nd underground floor inspection room is a place where articles are loaded and unloaded, and not only the goods of the store of this case but also the goods of other stores are opened to the public. The third underground floor storage was designated to store the goods of the store of this case, and the employees of the store of this case, including the former unit N, knew that the defendant stored the clothing of the store of this case in the second underground floor inspection room and the third underground floor storage.

However, since H, the actual operator of the victimized company, was ordered by the Defendant to conduct an inventory inspection on February 2014, he did not ascertain that the instant clothing was stored in the second-story test site and the third-story storage under the ground because he neglected to report the inventory status.

Therefore, the defendant's keeping of the instant clothing in the inspection room of the second basements and the third basements underground does not constitute concealment under Article 366 of the Criminal Act.

2) Even if the Defendant’s act constitutes concealment, even if the Defendant’s act constitutes concealment, the Defendant was not temporarily returned to the head office of the victimized company as an excessive duty, and the Defendant’s intention to infringe on the utility of the instant clothing was the second floor inspection room and the second floor inspection room.