The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles and found the credibility of the victim's statement to the effect that the defendant did not transfer the possession of the vehicle of this case to the defendant, and determined that the defendant unilaterally drive the vehicle of this case without the victim's consent or consent, which is the possessor, and thus, the crime of larceny is established. The victim's statement repeating statements contrary to various objective facts committed at the time is not reliable. Unlike the defendant's assertion, the defendant hear the statement that the victim is in custody as collateral for the borrowed money after discovery of the vehicle of this case as well as the statement that the defendant is being delivered the vehicle of this case as collateral after delivery of the vehicle of this case under the victim's understanding in order to find a smooth solution, and as the agreement with the victim was not reached, it does not constitute larceny that infringes on the possession of the vehicle of this case.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misconception of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the assertion of larceny under the relevant legal doctrine refers to the removal of possession from possession against the will of the possessor and the transfer of possession to himself/herself or a third party. Although the right to claim delivery, etc. based on the agreement is acknowledged, larceny is established by the act of excluding possession against the will of the possessor, unless the possessor’s explicit and implied consent is acknowledged at the time of possession, and in such a case, there is no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4546, Oct. 26, 2001).