Attorney C

A. Non-existence of an intention of unlawful acquisition;

In order to take measures to protect the animals of this case for temporary management, the defendant taken the animals of this case for the purpose of temporary management, and did not intend to exclude the ownership of the victim. After taking necessary measures such as vaccination and treatment, the defendant did not have any intention to enjoy personal or economic benefits. Thus, the defendant did not have any intention to obtain unlawful acquisition.

(b) Political acts;

In full view of the fact that the instant animals were not supplied normally to the instant animals at the time, the state of internal hygiene in livestock pens was very poor, the Defendant could not exercise the right to quarantine measures under the Animal Protection Act, and the Defendant’s endeavored to find out who the manager of the instant animals was the manager of the instant animals, but could not find out any sign that could not be known at the time, and thus could not take prior contact with the victim, the instant act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules as a relief measure for the instant animals in danger.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the defendant's assertion that there was no intention to obtain unlawful permission

1) The expression “an intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny” refers to an intention to use and dispose of another person’s property as his/her own property in accordance with the economic usage, such as that of his/her own property (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3655, Oct. 13, 2000). In cases where another person’s property is used without the consent of the possessor without permission, if the use of another person’s property is consumed or used to a considerable extent of economic value of the property itself, or it is committed at another place that was not originally used, or the property is occupied for a long time without returning it, then the intention of unlawful acquisition may be recognized by deeming that it was intended to infringe on the ownership or principal right (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9570, Aug. 18, 201). If the Defendant did not obtain the consent of the right holder at the time of taking another person’s property, even if the Defendant had been on payment or return of it after the date, the intention of unlawful acquisition can be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do9494.

2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below comprehensively based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant did not obtain the consent of the victim at the time of committing the crime of this case and did not take measures such as prior notification (the defendant asserted that the defendant could not visit or contact the victim because he did not have any sign to identify the victim at the time and could not have known the manager. However, such circumstance alone is difficult to see that the defendant made efforts to confirm the victim. The defendant did not take measures such as reporting to the competent authorities, etc.). ② The defendant destroyed the new wall 03:00 with his human body and destroyed the animal of this case to the Republic of Korea, and (3) the defendant did not think that he would have to return the animal of this case to the victim without the consent of the victim, but the defendant did not return the animal of this case to the victim without the consent of the defendant, and thus, the defendant did not have any economic reason to see that he did not return the animal of this case to the victim.

B. Determination on the assertion of justifiable acts

1) The judgment of the court below

The court below determined that the defendant's act of purchasing animals of this case does not constitute an act that can be accepted in light of the overall legal order or social ethics or social norms, and that the defendant's act of purchasing animals of this case constitutes legitimate act that does not contravene social norms, and that it should be judged individually by rationally examining the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the interests of protection and infringement, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003). In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's act of purchasing animals of this case does not constitute an act of protecting animals of this case, and the defendant's act of purchasing animals of this case can not be seen as a lawful act of protecting animals of this case, and the defendant's act of removing animals of this case is no more than 100 times to 200 animals of this case.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, it is justified that the court below determined that the defendant's act does not constitute a justifiable act, and in addition, (1) the defendant did not have any sign or contact with the victim because there was no person living around the time, and it was impossible to find that the defendant did not have any effort to confirm the victim or that it was completely impossible for the defendant to have any opinion on the management status of the animals of this case. It is difficult to view that the defendant found the animals of this case one week prior to the crime of this case and visited the farm of this case more than two or three times thereafter, and that the defendant did not take any measures necessary for protecting the animals of this case without any consent of the Association, in light of the following reasons: (2) the defendant did not appear to have been able to take any urgent measures to protect the animals of this case, such as reporting the animal of this case to the Association under its jurisdiction; and (3) the defendant could not have any other means to protect the animals of this case without due process.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Young-chul

For judge Lee Woo