本文探討竊盜罪成立之主觀面需具備的所有意圖（特別是所謂「排除意思」）之內涵，並以一時使用他人之物的情形為對象，試圖探求不可罰的使用竊盜與竊盜行為之具體的區別標準。本文詳細考察學說現況並歸納學說之課題後，也全面地檢討實務見解之理論問題，並基於考察成果歸納現行竊盜罪規定的解釋方向上，所有意圖的內涵需與竊盜故意有所區別的出發點，並應兼顧與符合竊盜罪條文中之「動產」的文義與周全保護所有權。本文並進一步確認竊盜罪成立構造，主張竊盜罪之所有意圖的「排除意思」之內涵，應是行為人於行為時，在其主觀面，就行為後的利用等行為侵害所有人回復原持有支配狀態之可能性的認識。並且，本文也較為具體地展開此一解釋論，主張於行為人一時使用他人之物的情形，應可透過行為人於行為時所認識的事實是否包含所有人在物理上與心理上回復原持有支配狀態的容易性為標準，判斷行為人於行為時有無所有意圖，並區別不可罰的使用竊盜與可罰的竊盜行為。

This Article explores the concept of the intent of appropriation in Larceny, aiming to elucidate the specific criteria that distinguishes the so-called unpunishable ＂users' theft＂ from larceny act in the case of temporary use of movable property of another. In the first place, this Article scrutinizes conventional wisdom concerning the Intent of Appropriation in Larceny, and tries to point out the theoretical problem concerning the special subjective element in the Taiwanese criminal code. Furthermore, this Article thoroughly examines the precedents of the high courts in the recent twe decades. Through this thorough examination, this article points out theoretical problem of lacking consist criteria between cases of temporary use of tangible object and cases of temporary usd of intangible property. This Article points out that the inconsistency is the problem which plagues judicial practice in Taiwan. Based on the analysis, this Article argues that the intent of appropriation should be which the offender has at the stage of attempt of larceny act. The offender must also perceive that the use after taking another’s movable property will impinge on the owner’s right to recover control over his or her movable property. Finally, based on the reconsideration of the structure of larceny act, this Article points out that the specific criteria that distinguishes unpunishable ＂users' theft＂ from larceny act should be whether the offender perceives that after his use of other's movable property, the owner will encounters physical or psychological obstacle when he tries to recover his control over the property.