The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of the legal principles 1) Defendant A and the joint Defendants B, C, and D of the original trial have brought things dynamicly to each other, and did not interfere with the aforementioned joint Defendants and goods by either attempted to steals or combined with them (which did not share an action). Defendant A participated in the act of moving the said things after the completion of the aforementioned joint Defendants’ act of theft by the said joint Defendants, and thus, constitutes a simple thief or a thief.

2) Since the damaged objects have accumulated a large amount of dust, they cannot be subject to protection under the Criminal Act as objects of property crimes because they are objective and subjective objects of non-valueless objects.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) In order to establish special larceny in a case where two or more persons of the latter part of Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act jointly commit a theft of another person’s property, it is required to share the act of conspiracy and implementation as an objective requirement as a subjective element. However, the conspiracy or conspiracy does not necessarily require advance preparation, but includes the expression of intent at the scene of crime at the scene of crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10408, Oct. 28, 2010). When considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, Defendant A, jointly with Defendant B, C, and D of the court below, stolen goods listed in the annexed list of crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below.

It is reasonable to view it.

The judgment of the court below that found Defendant A guilty of the charge of special larceny is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles pointed out by Defendant A.

subsection (b) of this section.

The defendant A's assertion in this part is without merit.

① Defendant A, at an investigative agency, has stolen necessary things from Defendant B, C, and D of the lower court.