The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was aware that the victim was transferred to the house of the victim who suffered from the Defendant’s physical exercise, and the victim was frightened, resulting in the victim’s physical exercise, and did not have any intention to larceny.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the Criminal Act, theft means the removal of possession of a person other than himself/herself from possession against his/her will, and the removal of possession to his/her own or a third party;

In addition, the intention of illegal acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention of excluding the right holder of another person's property and to use and dispose of it in accordance with the economic usage, such as his own property, and it merely infringes on the possession of another person.

하여 그로써 곧 절도죄가 성립하는 것은 아니나, 재물의 소유권 또는 이에 준하는 본권을 침해하는 의사가 있으면 되고 반드시 영구적으로 보유할 의사가 필요한 것은 아니며, 그것이 물건 자체를 영득할 의사인지 물건의 가치만을 영득할 의사인지를 불문한다( 대법원 2014. 2. 21. 선고 2013도 14139 판결). 원심의 증거에 의하면 ① 피해자는 이 사건 범행 일시 무렵 잠을 자고 있다가 출입문 우유 투입구가 덜컹거리는 소리와 함께 출입문 밖에서 ‘ 신발하나만 가져가겠다’ 는 취지의 소리가 들리자 경찰에 신고한 사실, ② 신고를 받고 출동한 경찰관들이 피해자와 같은 층에 있는 피고인의 집을 찾아가 피해자의 신발을 가지고 간 사실이 있는지 물어본 사실, ③ 이에 피고인은 경찰관들에게 “ 나는 지금 잠에서 깼다.

4. The victim found that he did not bring about a new attack in the judgment of the court below because he did not bring about a new attack in order to put a house in the presence of police officers.