The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not instruct the victim’s orchard to bring about wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals walswals wals wals

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty.

2. Determination

A. The intent of unlawful acquisition necessary to establish the crime of larceny refers to the intent to use or dispose of another person's property as his/her own property by excluding the right holder, and the intent to possess the economic benefit of the property permanently (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do12369, Jan. 23, 2014). Even in cases where the possession of another person is deprived for the purpose of temporary use, where the use of the property itself is consumed to the extent that the economic value of the property itself is significant, or where the property is occupied for a considerable period of time, or where the property is abandoned at a place different from its original place, it cannot be deemed as a temporary use. Therefore, the intention of acquisition cannot be deemed as

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012). (B)

Judgment

The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court, namely, G, consistent from the investigation agency to the trial court, and at the time, deemed that the Defendant misunderstanding the Defendant’s human body at the work site and erroneously harvested wals from the victim’s orchard. The Defendant stated that wals of wals harvested wals were moved to the Defendant because he said wals of wals of wals that were wrongfully harvested. The statement is credibility in light of the entire circumstances and contents of the case.