특수절도
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, this judgment is delivered against the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the instant vehicle: (a) the I leased the social service Korea Co., Ltd., Ltd., which Non-Bable Tews, and had H temporarily keep the instant vehicle for the purpose of leasing succession.
The Defendant kept a vehicle.
H is merely taking the instant vehicle by having the said vehicle directly with the said vehicle, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute larceny.
2. Determination:
A. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for one year with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Suwon Flag method on January 10, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 18, 2017, for two years of suspension of execution.
The crime of violation of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) against the defendant and the crime of violation of the judgment of the court below against the defendant, for which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, shall be sentenced to punishment for the crime of violation of the judgment of the court below in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is to be rendered at the same time in accordance with the main sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, since
However, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of the above facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined.
B. The Criminal Act regarding the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to the removal of possession from one’s possession against the will of the possessor and the transfer of possession to one’s or a third party. Although the right to claim delivery, etc. based on the agreement is acknowledged, larceny is established by excluding possession against the will of the possessor unless it is acknowledged that the possessor’s explicit and implied consent was given at the time of possession (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4546, Oct. 26, 2001). The lower court duly admitted and investigated by the evidence.