1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

The Defendant, who is a staff member of the rentalter Team of Co., Ltd. B (hereinafter “B”) (hereinafter “D”), was an employee of the claim recovery team of Co., Ltd. D (hereinafter “D”) and the Defendant: (a) leased the instant vehicle owned by B to C and I to towing the said vehicle from the victim who was using the said vehicle; and (b) stolen it.

2. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the following grounds.

D As long as it includes voluntary collection of sirens from lessees, etc. under the delegation contract with B, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s order to tow vehicles is unfair beyond the delegation contract’s scope.

C The intention of unlawful acquisition by the defendant cannot be recognized because it is merely an execution of the duties set forth in the delegation contract or an execution of the duties set forth in the direction of the defendant concerning the vehicle.

3. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. The Criminal Act refers to the removal of possession from one’s possession against the will of the possessor of another and the removal from one’s or a third party’s possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11771, Apr. 26, 2012). Even if a right to claim delivery, etc. based on an agreement is acknowledged, theft is established by excluding possession against the will of the possessor unless the possessor’s explicit and implied consent on the transfer of possession is recognized at the time of the possession of the property. In such a case, it cannot be said that the possessor did not intend to acquire illegal property unless there exist any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5064, Feb. 25, 2010).