The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the larceny against victim E), the Defendant merely borrowed a leg, and there was no intention to larceny or to acquire illegal property on a leg.

In addition, since the defendant would take a dead bridge with permission from C at the time, the illegality should be excluded due to the victim's consent or presumption consent.

2) The lower court’s punishment (amounting to KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable as to the whole of the facts charged.

2. 1) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the following circumstances are recognized.

(1) The injured party was able to set up his own bridge at the lower court and the investigative agency of C, a wife-type C, and set up a locked house with C. Since the bridge was dead and confirmed CCTV images, the Defendant was found to have taken the bridge.

The lower court and the investigative agency made a statement (see, e.g., 34-35 of the evidence record, 47 of the trial record). C also made a statement to the same effect (see, e.g., 7 evidence records, 41-42 of the trial record), consistent with the aforementioned statement by the injured party (see, e.g., 25-26, 31 of the evidence records), and CCTV images also made a statement that the injured party was consistent with the aforementioned statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 25-26, 31 of the evidence records). ② The Defendant stated that he consistently went from the investigative agency to the trial of the injured party, and that he was lending a sloping from the warehouse with the permission of the injured party C (see, e.g., referring to the 18th page of the evidence records). However, in light of CCTV images that the Defendant brought about a sloping bridge that was in front

③ The victim stated that the lower court and the investigative agency did not allow the Defendant to use a bridge (see, e.g., record 36 pages of evidence, page 48 of the trial record), and C also stated to the same effect at the lower court and the investigative agency (Evidence No. 42 pages of evidence and the trial record).