특수절도
The judgment below
The part concerning the accused case shall be reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant.
1. We examine whether the Defendant did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal within the lawful period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal, and did not state any grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal, but ex officio, it can be viewed that the Defendant had the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition necessary to establish larceny.
2.(a)
The intention of illegal acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention to use or dispose of another person's property in accordance with the economic usage, such as his own property, and it is not necessary to permanently hold the economic interest of the property. However, the mere infringement of possession alone cannot constitute larceny, i.e., the intention to acquire ownership or the equivalent right, or the intention to acquire only the value of the property, i.e. the intention to acquire ownership or the equivalent right, or to obtain the ownership or the equivalent right.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 91Do3149 delivered on September 8, 1992; 2000Do3655 delivered on October 13, 2000, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do3149 delivered on September 8, 199
However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are acknowledged.
On October 1, 2008, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) operated by the Defendant leased stores, etc. indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter referred to as “instant stores”) from the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Urban Railroad Corporation”) during the term of lease from October 1, 2008 to January 30, 2014. The term of lease was changed from October 9, 2009 to March 1, 2014.
The Defendant requested an extension of the term of the lease to the Multilateral Urban Railroad Corporation, but was rejected. On January 2014, the Defendant was demanded from the Urban Railroad Corporation to deliver the instant store, etc. when the term of the lease expires.
Around March 2014, the Defendant, a representative director of L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “L”) (hereinafter referred to as “L”), shall pay money.