All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The documents of the Defendant’s mistake of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and E (hereinafter “E”) were copied, and they were returned to the company, and there was no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition. Therefore, changing the password and security card of the E office is dismissed as an inevitable act committed by the representative director, etc. to prevent the illegal settlement of accounts that the Defendant intended to hold without excluding the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence (three million won of a fine) declared by the lower court on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is either hot or unhutiled (the Defendant).

2. Judgment on the defendant's misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. In the case of larceny, the intent of unlawful acquisition in the possession of the stolen property is not required permanently to possess the economic interest of the property, but is, that is, the intent of acquiring only the value of the property or the substance equivalent thereto is to acquire the ownership or the substance equivalent thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Do2394, Oct. 13, 1981). In a case where the property of another person is used without the consent of the possessor without the consent of the possessor, if the property is consumed or used to the extent that the economic value of the property itself was considerable, or the property was used to the extent that it was not the original place, or the property was discarded to another place, other than the original place, or is occupied for the long time without the return, the intention of unlawful acquisition may be recognized by deeming that the act of infringing on the ownership

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and the court below referred the case to a simplified trial procedure and examined evidence, but the defendant submitted the case to the court below for the examination of evidence. The court below did not err in misapprehending the legal principles as seen above.