The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant visited the factory following the following day to check whether there was an intention of illegal acquisition, as he did not have any intention to acquire the seal impression and the key to the factory.

In addition, the defendant did not assault the victim or interfere with the business of the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. With respect to the crime of larceny, the Criminal Code refers to the act of removing possession of another person other than himself/herself from possession against his/her will and moving of another person to his/her or a third person's possession, and the intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention of excluding the rightful owner of another person's property and using and disposing of another person's property in accordance with the economic usage, such as his/her own property.

Therefore, even though the mere infringement of other person's possession is not a mere infringement of larceny, there is an intention to infringe on the ownership of property or other equivalent rights, and it does not necessarily require the intention to hold it permanently.

(2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the Defendant, as indicated in the judgment below, voluntarily attempts to bring about the victim’s seal imprint and the key of the company and the factory, as well as to bring about a deduction of one company’s seal imprint and the key, as indicated in the judgment below, and return it again to the third place, and the Defendant stated in the investigation agency that he would want to execute a claim, thereby sending the company seal imprint and the key to the factory. In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant voluntarily attempts to bring the victim’s seal imprint and the key to the company and the key to the factory; and (b) the Defendant, as stated in the judgment below, voluntarily attempts to bring the victim’s seal imprint and the key to the company.