The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Since an employee was in a situation in which he was able to protect the defendant against the theft, and was found to be by the former employee while he was missing the calculation team, he merely constitutes attempted larceny, and did not reach the number of larceny. 2) As to the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the defendant did not have any disturbance or failure, and there was no fact that the defendant committed an act such as a disturbance which is not a constituent element for interference with the duties of violating the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and there was no fact that the victim interfered with

B. Judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing: 700,000 won

2. Determination

가. 절도의 점에 대하여 절도죄는 타인의 소지를 침해하여 재물이 자기의 소지로 이동할 때, 즉 자기의 사실적 지배 밑에 둔 때에 기수가 된다(대법원 1964. 12. 8. 선고 64도577 판결 참조). 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인이 원심 판시 범죄사실 기재와 같이 마트에 진열되어 있던 피해품(깻잎 통조림 3개)을 자신의 가방에 집어 넣은 사실이 인정되는바, 피고인은 피해품을 자기의 가방에 넣은 순간 피해품에 대한 사실적 지배를 획득하였으므로, 절도는 기수에 이르렀다고 할 것이고, 종업원이 피고인을 지켜보고 있다가 이를 적발하여 계산대를 벗어나지 않았다는 사정만으로는 절도의 완성에 장애가 되지 아니하므로, 피고인의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

B. As to the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act provides that “the crime of interference with business spreads false facts, deceptive means, or threat of force” (Article 314(1)), and the crime of interference with business under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides that the crime of interference with business under the Punishment of Minor Offenses

(Article 3(3)3 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act aims to protect the freedom and rights of the people and to contribute to maintaining the order of the public in society.