The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In a case where the judgment of the first instance, which rendered a judgment of not guilty or partially guilty of part of the concurrent crimes within the scope of the trial in this court, appealed the part of the judgment of not guilty only by the prosecutor, the part of the judgment of not guilty which was affirmed by the defendant and the prosecutor, and the part of the judgment of not guilty which was pending before the appellate court is only a public prosecution against the part of the judgment of not guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1402 delivered on January 21, 1992, etc.) (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1402 delivered on January 21, 1992, etc.). The court below acquitted the defendant on the part of the facts charged in this case concerning larceny and its contents, and larceny against 200,000 won in cash, and only the defendant appealed against the part of the judgment

Therefore, since the above acquittal part against the defendant was finally affirmed, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the defendant's conviction part.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. Regarding the part of larceny as stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant thought that he was the owner of the instant case’s Ecode and its contents, and thus, he did not constitute larceny but did not intend to larceny.

B. With respect to the part of the crime of damaging public documents as stated in the judgment of the court below, at the time when the police prepared a suspect interrogation protocol, the defendant did not ask any question about the part of 200,000 won in cash, and therefore did not answer any question.

Nevertheless, the above suspect interrogation protocol is teared to the effect that it is required to correct because the contents of the protocol are written, so this constitutes legitimate defense.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances are revealed based on the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts regarding larceny, i.e., the Ecode of this case is clean in appearance.