The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, has been in a misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles, he administered two times in Aminogle and one time in a non-saminc case, the Defendant is not subject to larceny on the ground that there was a explicit implied permission of C, the owner, who is the complainant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty on the part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance on the defendant's grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 200,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the first instance trial, and the court of the first instance rejected the Defendant’s assertion while explaining the grounds for its determination at the bottom of the summary column of evidence, and convicted this part of the facts charged.

A thorough examination of the above judgment by the court of first instance compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, and examining the following circumstances, it cannot be deemed that there was an explicit or implied permission of the victim C regarding medication as stated in the judgment. Thus, the above judgment by the court of first instance is just, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

1) Even based on the Defendant’s assertion or testimony, it is clear that the victim’s prior consent was not obtained prior to the administration of the medication as stated in the judgment of the Defendant, and that the victim of ordinary level was not explicitly permitted to administer the medicine. Furthermore, even if the victim did not make any particular reference to the administration of the medicine by employees, such as nursing staff, etc., the victim’s involvement in daily intervention from the standpoint of operating the hospital even when the employee did not make any particular reference to the administration of the medicine.