The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not have the intention of larceny since he removed the instant stone from the building, thought it was merely an abandoned stone, and returned it again.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is deemed to have brought about the Defendant to use and dispose of the instant stone as his own property without the permission of E or D, who is the owner of the instant house, and thus, it can be deemed that the Defendant had an intention to obtain illegal acquisition of the instant stone.

The decision was determined.

① The instant house located in Kim Jong-si (hereinafter “instant house”) was owned by E, but D did not have resided in the instant house at the time of the instant case. However, D managed the instant house upon the request of the father G of E.

② The instant stone was placed at the mast of the instant house, but the mast of the instant house was installed with a fence and a fence.

③ The Defendant did not verify whether he brought about the instant stone to E or D, the owner of the instant house, resulting in the instant stone and did not bring about the instant stone to D.

④ The Defendant brought a stone to the instant stone and used it to divide it into a farming waterway, and the Defendant did not return to the instant house before having reported D.

⑤ In light of the size, number, use, etc. of the instant stone stone as well as the instant stone stone, it cannot be deemed that the instant stone stone is an object with no economic value.

(6)