절도
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the injured party acquired possession of the instant passenger vehicle based on the civil final and conclusive judgment against the Defendant at the time the Defendant had a passenger car as indicated in the facts charged of the instant case (hereinafter “the instant passenger car”). As such, the Defendant occupied the instant passenger vehicle.
It can not be seen that the Defendant brought the instant car to the Republic of Korea does not constitute the act of self-help.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor shall retain the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged at the trial of the party, and the prosecutor shall, in the name of the offense, “ evasion of compulsory execution” under Article 327 of the Criminal Act, “Article 327 of the Criminal Act” under the applicable law, and apply for amendments to the indictment by adding the facts charged as stated in the column of “criminal facts” under the facts charged, and this court shall grant permission.
As such, the subject of the judgment of this court was changed (the supplementary charges added thereto are recognized as guilty as follows), the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.
However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles on the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
3. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle on the prosecutor's primary facts charged
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was provided as security from E who was not authorized to dispose of the victim C’s automobile at a closed place on March 2014, and on June 10, 2015, the judgment was issued by the Jeonju District Court to deliver the said car to the victim company by the Jeonju District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 5, 2016, and there was no right to possess the said car lawfully.
The injured party company is now the victim company on December 2016.