The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant attempted to return smartphones owned by the victim, the Defendant did not have an intention of unlawful acquisition at the time the Defendant acquired smartphones, it was deemed that the victim dealt with the stolen person and did not want to return it.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant as to the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the relevant legal doctrine, theft under the Criminal Act refers to the act of removing possession of another person from possession against the will of the possessor and moving it to his/her or a third party. Moreover, the intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intent of excluding the right holder of another person’s property and intending to use and dispose of another person’s property in accordance with the economic usage, such as his/her own property. It merely infringes on another person’s possession, and thus, is not a mere infringement on the ownership of property or other equivalent rights. However, if it is an infringement on the ownership of property or other equivalent rights, it does not necessarily require permanent possession, regardless of whether it is an intention to acquire the property itself or the value of the property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1171, Apr. 26, 2012). In determining credibility of a confession made by the defendant or his/her court at the lower court, the motive or reason that the confession differs from the statement at the appellate court is objectively doubtful, and the motive or credibility of his/her confession.