beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.21 2017노5624

절도

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, mental or physical disorder, and improper sentencing);

A. In order to display labor or complaints against the store employees who neglected to do so, the Defendant misunderstanding of facts merely cited the original ice and did not have any intention of unlawful acquisition.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had mental and physical weakness due to mental illness, such as depression, etc.

(c)

The sentence of the court below against the illegal defendant in sentencing (the amount of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts 1) The intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intent of excluding the right holder of another person’s property and to use and dispose of another person’s property as his/her own property pursuant to the relevant economic usage, and it merely infringes on the other person’s possession.

Therefore, theft is not established immediately. However, if there is an intention to possess property or its equivalent rights permanently, it is not necessarily necessary to hold it permanently, and whether it is an intention to acquire the property itself or only the value of the property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11771, Apr. 26, 2012). 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① insofar as the defendant committed an act of excluding the possession and possession without the victim’s explicit or implied permission, barring special circumstances, he/she had the intent to infringe on the victim’s ownership.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant, on March 11, 2017, stolen the instant primary fee and keeps it in the house; and (b) the Defendant, upon contact with the police on March 23, 2017, voluntarily submitted it, can sufficiently be recognized that the Defendant had the intent of unlawful acquisition.

This part of the argument is without merit.

B. The judgment of the court below and the trial of the court below on the assertion of mental disorder.