The judgment below

Among them, the part on larceny is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles)

A. As to the larceny of the facts charged in the instant case, according to the statement of F and C, the owner of the vehicle, and his husband, C, even though C requested the Defendant not to drive the said vehicle explicitly at the time, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant neglected this request and left the vehicle, thereby driving the said vehicle. As such, the intent of theft was recognized, the economic value of the vehicle was reduced considerably due to the traffic accident, and the vehicle was not immediately returned, and thus, the intention of unlawful acquisition may also be recognized.

B. As to the intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case, each of the statements made by the victim C and H complies with the facts charged in this part, and the Defendant also acknowledged the fact that the victim would die in the process of taking a bath against the victim at the location where H around March 2013, the victim’s statement was made. As such, this part of the facts charged can be fully recognized.

C. Nevertheless, the court below rendered a judgment of innocence on the whole facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment ex officio (part on larceny in the judgment of the court below) applied for the permission of changes in the indictment to the effect that the prosecutor's appeal against the larceny among the facts charged in this case was made ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, and that this part of the facts charged was made at the trial, and the prosecutor, at around 24:00 on March 20, 2013, he applied for the permission of changes in the indictment to the effect that "the defendant used the key to the G E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E which is the victim F-owned on his book and used it at the same time without the victim's consent, and thereby, the defendant temporarily used the other person's vehicle." Since this is changed by this court's permission, it is based on the initial indictment.