The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the appeal is that the defendant's cell phone is known as the cell phone and the victim's cell phone was stored, and the following day was broken and tried to turn back, but the contact with the victim was not made.

Therefore, there was no intention to larceny the victim's mobile phone.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the second trial date, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

B. The intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny, which is an intention to use or dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property, refers to the intention to use or dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property, and there is no need to possess the economic interest of the goods permanently. Even in cases where the possession of another person is deprived for the purpose of temporary use, it shall not be deemed that the use of the goods itself is used to a considerable amount of economic value or a considerable amount of time, or abandons it in a place other than its original place (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012, etc.). The relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted by the court below, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the Defendant did not receive a phone all the victim's mobile phone even if he/she made several calls on the day of the instant case, and ii) the Defendant did not actively return his/her mobile phone to the victim.