The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principle of the defendant and the sentencing unfair) of the facts charged in this case and its mistake are acknowledged, but the crime of larceny and the punishment of the court below is not acceptable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on October 27, 2017 for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) and a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking without a license) in the support of Ansan Frigwon on October 27, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 4, 2017.

Therefore, in relation to the crime of larceny and the above violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the court below against the defendant, the punishment for the crime of larceny and the above violation of the Road Traffic Act shall be imposed in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is rendered at the same time under the main sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

Although the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined below.

3. In a judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles of the defendant, theft refers to the removal of the property possessed by another person against the will of the possessor and the removal of the property from one's or a third person's possession. Whether a certain property is occupied by another person or not shall be determined by considering the intention of control as a subjective element in addition to the scope of management as an objective element or the possibility of factual management, and ultimately, in light of the form of the property in question and other specific circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3252, Jul. 10, 2008). In light of the above legal principles, it shall be determined by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.