The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the ownership of the F45 Hyundai Airport bus vehicle in relation to the event that the plaintiff brought the above vehicle to the defendant, who is the owner of the land. Therefore, even if the defendant brought the above vehicle to the court, theft, which is the object of another person's property, is not established.

In addition, the defendant recognized that the above vehicle was his own vehicle and did not have the intention of vehicle theft.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as larceny is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On August 24, 201, at around 21:00, the Defendant: (a) stolen a bus vehicle owned by the victimized company by having a friendly G, who was not aware of the key of the vehicle in advance, drive the said bus vehicle using the said key, on the ground that: (b) the Defendant would recover the claim amounting to KRW 130,000,000,000 in the market price of the modern passenger bus vehicle owned by the 45 members of the company in charge of the resolution to operate the said bus in front of Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si; (c) on the ground that: (d) around 21:00, the Defendant:

B. On the judgment of the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty by taking account of the evidence in its holding.

C. Even if a party in the process of a decision at the time of the trial, even though the party in the process of the decision at the time of the trial has the de facto right to dispose of the property, it is nothing more than the internal relationship with the party in the middle-term project operator who has been employed by the party in the middle-term project, and externally, the party in the middle-term project operator has the right (such as the right to dispose of property) as the owner of the property (such as

(See Supreme Court Decision 89Do773 delivered on November 14, 1989). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the following circumstances are recognized.

1. C has been working in the K travelr operated by the J in a de facto marital relationship with the Defendant, and around October 31, 2008 at the time of serving in the K travelr.