The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not choose a legitimate means permitted by the law and sold the above container to a third party, it cannot be said that the reasonableness of the said means and method is recognized, and it cannot be said that the said container is an urgent and inevitable means.

Although the defendant's act does not meet the requirement of Article 20 of the Criminal Code, the defendant's act constitutes a element of larceny, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the court below's decision that the illegality is excluded as a legitimate act.

2. Determination

A. The term "act that does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act. Thus, if a certain act satisfies the requirements such as legitimacy of motive or purpose, reasonableness of means or method of the act, balance of legal interests protected by law and legal interests with infringement legal interests, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act, it constitutes a justifiable act.

I would like to say.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4732 delivered on August 20, 2004).

In light of the above legal doctrine, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that Defendant’s act constitutes larceny, and that Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act, and that Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act. 2) First of all, the Prosecutor did not dispute the lower court’s judgment on this part, but the Defendant still asserts that container falls under the ownership of Defendant, and thus, re-examines it.

In addition to the circumstances described in the judgment below, the victim, which is recognized by the records, shall resume the container of this case to the seller upon completion of the construction.