The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, as recorded in the facts charged, opened up 12 copies of the original medical record at the D Animal Medical Center (hereinafter “the instant veterinary hospital”), around October 8, 2012, as indicated in the facts charged, at the D Animal Medical Center (hereinafter “the instant veterinary hospital”). However, the Defendant, who is in a business relationship with the victim E, has the right to occupy and use them on an equal basis with the victim. The instant original is not having economic value, and the Defendant’s delivery of copies to the victim, and the Defendant took them out with evidentiary materials to prevent the victim from committing an illegal act. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intention to obtain unlawful acquisition. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on larceny, such as the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

B. Even if the conviction of unjust sentencing is recognized, in light of the motive of the above crime and the purport of the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Reporters, etc., the lower court’s punishment of a fine of KRW 300,000 is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the event that a partner’s joint possession of the property of the same business that belongs to the joint possession of another partner without the consent of the other partner in determining the misapprehension of the legal principle, and transferred the property to his/her own control by himself/herself, theft is established (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2076, Oct. 12, 1995). In addition, the property that is the object of larceny does not necessarily have an objective monetary exchange value, and it is sufficient that the owner or occupant has a subjective value. In this case, the existence of a subjective and economic value is not established in the passive relationship that the property is not used by another person.

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595 Decided August 23, 2007). In addition, the intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny is to exclude a right holder and to exclude another person’s property like his own property.