The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant was close to the victim of the theft of this case, such as usual friendship, and brought about the victim at the time of this case after the Defendant said that he would bring about a bodily injury to the victim. Therefore, there was no intention of illegal acquisition.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant of the charge of larceny is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment that the court below sentenced to the defendant (the punishment No. 1, No. 2: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and April, and No. 3 in the ruling: fine of 100,000 won and penalty of 1 million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In fact, theft under the Criminal Code, which is alleged to be erroneous, means the transfer of property owned by a person other than himself/herself or a third party to his/her own possession against the will of the possessor.

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.

Inasmuch as theft is not established immediately. However, if there is an intention to possess the property or its equivalent, it is not necessarily necessary to permanently hold the property, and whether it is an intention to acquire only the value of the property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11771, Apr. 26, 2012). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant led to the confession of all the facts charged regarding larceny at the time of being investigated by the prosecution, and even considering the specific contents of the confession, motive and circumstance leading up to the confession, and existence of evidence inconsistent therewith.