The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant charges on the ground that: (a) the Defendant’s statement made at the court of first instance or the police or the investigation report to the effect that the number plate was removed at the time the Defendant’s residence was discovered; (b) rather, the Defendant was not guilty of the instant charges on the ground that the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s intention to temporarily use the instant Orala while driving the instant Orala at court; (c) the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was aware of the victim at ordinary times; or (d) the Defendant collected the instant Orala when driving the Orala while driving the instant Orala and did not seem to have been consumed to a considerable economic value; and (d) the Defendant actually used the Orala while driving the Orala and did not seem to have taken place the instant Orala in the victim’s intention to return it.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

The intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention to use and dispose of another person's property as his/her own property by excluding the right holder, and it does not require the intention to permanently hold the economic interest of the property. Even if the possession of another person is deprived for the purpose of temporary use, it is reasonable to deem that the use of the property itself is consumed to the extent that the economic value of the property itself is considerably high or abandons it to another person from its original place.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012). (B)

According to the evidence and records duly adopted by the court below, the defendant 1 has objection.