The defendant shall be innocent.

1. At around 08:39, March 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) stolen a incombustible flame retardation plate of an amount equivalent to KRW 400,00 (82cm in length, 200cm in width) at the market price set up by the victim D outside of the 1st floor of the Gui-si, Gui-si, Seoul, by transfer to the Esch Rexroth Co., Ltd., owned by the Defendant.

2. The criminal intent of larceny refers to the perception that another person’s possession under the possession of another person is transferred to him/herself or to a third party against his/her will. Thus, if another person renounced ownership and acquired it by mistake as a stolen article, the criminal intent of larceny cannot be recognized unless there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding as to the misunderstanding (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do971, Jan. 17, 1989). Meanwhile, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial lies on the prosecutor, and the recognition of guilt must be based on evidence with probative value that leads the judge to believe that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt is between the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003). The Defendant, from the police to this court, consistently known the instant Gohap as an object leaving the instant Gohap, and denied the criminal intent of theft.

Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined in this court, ① the instant Gohap is a composite board of 82 cm and 20 cm wide, street 20 cm wide from the outer wall of the first floor of the building to cover the space between a road projected and the bottom of the road. ② The victim, at the time of the instant case, removed the instant Gohap from the road adjacent to the building to repair the toilets.