The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that another person is deemed to have abandoned the instant skiing, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to steals another person’s property. The Defendant confirmed that the instant skiing was in accordance with his/her skiing body on the ground that he/she did not comply with the foregoing, and first, attempted to bring the instant skiing back to the place where he/she first brought the instant skiing, and thus, cannot be deemed as having obtained unlawful acquisition intent.

2. The thief’s criminal intent refers to the perception that another person’s possession under another person’s possession is transferred to him/herself or to a third party’s possession against his/her will. Therefore, in cases where another person renounced his/her ownership and acquired it, it is difficult to recognize the thief’s criminal intent, unless there exist justifiable grounds for misunderstanding as to the thief

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Do971 delivered on January 17, 1989). In addition, the intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny under the Criminal Act refers to the intent to use or dispose of another person's property in accordance with its economic use, such as his own property, by excluding the right holder.

(See Supreme Court Decision 61Do179 delivered on June 28, 1961). Regarding whether the defendant's intent to commit the crime of this case is recognized as the intention to commit the crime of this case, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion in its reasoning under the title "as to the defendant's and his defense counsel's argument". If the judgment of the court below is closely compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is hard to see that the defendant has justifiable reasons to believe that the victim D is the object of this case's skiing, and further, the defendant thought that the defendant was the ski of this case.