The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the two years each from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendants’ act of taking the wallets (hereinafter referred to as “instant wallets”) located on the side tables from the main point of “E” located in Mapo-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “E”) in Mapo-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “instant main point”) constitutes a theft, but the Defendants did not have any intention to obtain unlawful procurement.

In light of the above, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged was around 06:20 on March 6, 2016, the Defendants: (a) up to the main point of the instant case, the Victim F set up the instant wall; (b) conspired to bring the wall to the seat of the victim F; and (c) Defendant A laid the wall back to the Defendant B, and Defendant B put the wall out of the main point.

As a result, the Defendants jointly stolen the unsatisfying of the market price, which includes 7,000 won in cash owned by the victim, one resident registration certificate, one driver's license, etc.

B. (1) Determination is made by the intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny.

The term "right holder" means an intention to use or dispose of another person's goods, such as his own property, in accordance with the economic usage. Permanently, there is no need to possess the economic interest of the goods. Even in the case of a deprivation of another person's possession for the purpose of temporary use, the use of the goods itself cannot be deemed a temporary use of the goods where the goods in question are consumed to an extent that the economic value of the goods in question is considerable or considerable time is occupied, or where the goods are abandoned in a place different from their original place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do3465, Sept. 6, 2002; 2005Do7819, Mar. 9, 2006). However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below after considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendants do not have an intention to acquire them.