The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant was aware of the substance of the grounds for appeal and did not have any intention to steal the main body of the computer of this case.

The punishment of the court below (the amount of 300,000 won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In a case where the defendant denies the intention, which is a subjective element of the elements of the constituent elements of the crime, the criminal intent itself cannot be objectively proved. Therefore, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts related to the criminal intent due to the nature of the object.

In such a case, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial fact ought to be determined by a reasonable method of determining the link of facts based on the ordinary empirical rule with the detailed observation or analysis capacity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006; 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017). Meanwhile, in contrast to gross negligence, the willful negligence, which is a kind of intentional act, has the awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of a crime, and the intention of deliberation to allow the risk of criminal facts is required.

Whether an actor has accepted the possibility of occurrence of a crime must be determined by considering how to evaluate the possibility of occurrence of a crime if the general public is based on specific circumstances, such as the form of an act and the situation of an act that was externally revealed without depending on the statement of the offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do74, May 14, 2004; 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017). The following circumstances can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

The computer body of this case purchased approximately KRW 600,00,00 for the victim and purchased it only for seven months (7 pages of evidence), and there is a substantial economic value.