[절도][공1985.2.15.(746),220]
The case holding that there was an error of failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations for the confirmation of a larceny;
If a store is closed at the nearest time and a store is left alone outside the store without taking measures for observing old bread, the victim may be mistaken for the goods he has abandoned his ownership. In such a case, there are cases where it is difficult to recognize the scope of larceny. Therefore, the court below should have further examined the location where the said bread was stockpiled, whether there was a guard measure, and whether there was a case where the victim neglected the decomposed bread in the front of the store, and then determined the legitimacy of the defendant's assertion that the above person misleads the victim of the decomposed bread.
Articles 13 and 329 of the Criminal Act; Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Defendant
Defendant
Daegu District Court Decision 84No329 delivered on July 6, 1984
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.
We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.
원심은 피고인이 1983.4.28. 23:55경 대구시 남구 대명 6 동 596의 1 피해자 박노극이 경영하는 샤니케익 서대구대리점에 진열해 둔 동인 소유의 패스추리 빵 38개 및 단팥빵 3개 도합 4,150원 상당을 절취하였다고 인정한 1심판결을 유지하고 있다.
However, since the first instance court, the defendant made a statement that he would be able to take care of the breath with the knowledge of the breath's injury and caused the breath's injury to the breath's being able to take care of the breath's property, and thus, the victim knew of the breath's wrong possession of the breath's property, and thus the breath's criminal intent is not committed. At the police investigation, the defendant stated that the breath's agent stored the breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's 28th's 1983.
In light of the above statements, since it is clear that the victim had old bread outside the victim's store, and it was stolen, if the store was closed at the nearest time and the date of manufacturing was left outside the store without taking measures to take measures to see the old bread, the victim may be mistaken for the goods he/she has renounced his/her ownership. In such cases, there are cases where it is difficult to recognize the crime of larceny.
Therefore, the court below should have examined the location where the above bread was stockpiled, the existence of guard measures, and whether there were cases where the said bread was disposed of as alleged by the defendant in the victim shop, and whether there were cases where the said bread was disposed of in the victim shop, and further examined whether the defense of the defendant was reasonable.
In this respect, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the incomplete review, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)