The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the legal principle of the defendant) (hereinafter referred to as the "victim") was committed with the victim and the victim did not intend to illegally obtain the mobile phone of this case that the victim returned to the defendant with his/her body booming the cell phone of the victim (hereinafter referred to as the "the mobile phone of this case") as stated in the judgment of the court below in the difference of windows for the purpose of getting the victim to get out of the taxi and get out of the taxi to get out of the taxi.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which found guilty of the facts charged of this case.

2. The expression of intent to acquire illegality necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention to use or dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property, and it does not require permanent intent to hold economic benefits. Even in cases where a person has been occupied for the purpose of temporary use, where the use of goods itself is consumed to the extent that the economic value of the goods is considerably high, or it is occupied for a considerable period of time, or abandons it at a place different from its original place, it shall not be deemed a temporary use, and it shall not be deemed that there is no intention to acquire it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do3465, Sept. 6, 200; 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the first instance court, namely, the defendant continued to take advantage of the victim's mobile phone from the victim to the taxi and continued to take advantage of the victim.