The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On July 11, 2016, the Defendant in the factory room: (a) around the street of “D” located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul; (b) the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 6,00,000,000 if the victim E ( South, 55 years old) was set aside.

Pursuant to the PPPP, the gold type "(hereinafter referred to as the "gold type of this case") was prepared in advance and was stolen by carrying them in hand at hand.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. It is true that the defendant's assertion of the punishment of this case is against the defendant and his defense counsel. However, since the defendant's assertion of the punishment of this case is against the duty of care, he did not have the intention of larceny.

B. In order to establish a judgment of larceny, at the time of subjective theft, the defendant should be aware that his/her property brought about is another person's property.

In other words, the intention of larceny should be recognized.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court in the instant case, the Defendant appears to have taken the Defendant’s misunderstanding that the instant gold-type was a property owned by another person without recognizing that it was a property owned by another person, and thus, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the type of the instant gold-type as a property

It is reasonable to view it.

① The gold penalty of this case was neglected for a considerable period of time on the side of the Mandole of the sewage hole adjacent to the uribotot, as well as was living in a state where considerable melting was not used for a long time in appearance.

② The place where the gold bars of this case were placed was a place where the gold bars were not used for senior citizens collecting the abolition, etc. from the place where the gold bars were placed, or there was an empty bottle, etc.

③ After finding the type of gold in this case, the Defendant: (a) discovered the type of gold in this case, requested the two players to assist in collecting the paper; (b) considered the type of gold as but did not appear to help the Defendant to assist the abolished and collected merchants.

(4) The Defendant consistently discovered the penalty of this case from investigative agencies to this court.