특수절도
The judgment of the court below, excluding the application for compensation order, shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
except that this shall not apply.
1. The petition of appeal submitted by a defense counsel of the defendant who has delayed submission of the statement of reason for appeal does not contain the reason for appeal, and the defendant was notified of the receipt of the records of trial on July 2, 2015, but did not submit the statement
In addition, the defendant's defense counsel submitted a statement of grounds for appeal claiming misconception of facts and unfair sentencing while submitting the defense counsel appointment system on August 12, 2015. However, if the defendant is appointed after the defendant received the records of trial, it is not necessary to give the same notice again to the defense counsel, and the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal should also be calculated from the date the defendant is notified (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do166, Sept. 6, 1996). Therefore, the reasons stated in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted by the defense counsel cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.
However, the court below held that there are grounds for ex officio investigation as follows 2-B.
Since it is judged, it is judged ex officio without making a decision to dismiss an appeal pursuant to the proviso of Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
2. Ex officio determination
A. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s defense counsel stated the reasons for appeal, which was later submitted, “The Defendant only moved the goods, equipment, etc. owned by the injured party (hereinafter “the instant goods”) to another place, and did not intend to keep the instant goods for a long time, and had the injured party notified of the storage place of the instant goods to the injured party on the day of the instant goods. As such, the Defendant did not intend to obtain unlawful acquisition.
‘Written argument, however, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as seen earlier, and even after ex officio examination, the Criminal Code refers to the exclusion of possession against the will of the possessor in possession of another person and the transfer to his or her own possession or a third party, and the intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny is the same.