The defendant shall be innocent.

1. A summary of the facts charged: (a) around November 15, 2019, the Defendant: (b) stolen, in a manner that, in front of the government city B on the street, the victim C neglected to diversize due diligence in another place; (c) took the victim’s possession of books, posts, chairs, and other things in the market that had been placed in another place; and (d) carried them into the vehicle.

2. The summary of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion was misleading that the articles of this case were discarded, and there was no intention to larceny.

3. Relevant legal principles

A. 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 person’s possession against his/her will, and in cases where another person acquired it by misunderstanding that another person renounces his/her ownership, the latter cannot be recognized as having committed the thief’s criminal intent unless there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding

(Supreme Court Decision 88Do971 delivered on January 17, 1989). B.

The establishment of facts constituting a crime in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have such convictions as to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such convictions are to be followed, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal.

(4) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court on April 28, 201 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 201) in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven without reasonable doubt that the Defendant possessed the instant articles under the criminal intent of larceny, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

1. The aggrieved person requested the business entity to arrange his house on the day of the instant case.