beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.06.16 2016노4608

절도

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), although the Defendant could be recognized as having brought the things indicated in the facts charged with the criminal intent of larceny and the intention of unlawful acquisition, the lower court erred and determined otherwise by the lower court. In so doing, the lower court stated in the lower court that “The Defendant did not recognize the facts charged because he was aware of the goods to be discarded” (Article 28th page of the record of trial). The lower court organized the Defendant’s assertion to deny the intention of unlawful acquisition, and appealed that the prosecutor recognized the Defendant’s intention of unlawful acquisition

However, the intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny

The term "right holder" means an intention to use and dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property, by excluding the right holder (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012). In cases where another person gives up his/her ownership and acquires it by misunderstanding another person as an abandoned property, it is difficult to recognize the crime of larceny unless there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding as such.

Therefore, (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do971 delivered on January 17, 1989). The defendant's assertion is reasonable to view that it is the purpose of denying the criminal intent of larceny.

2. The thief’s criminal intent refers to the perception that another person’s thief’s thief’s thief’s thief’s thief’s thief’s thief’s thief’s thief’s thief’s thief’s thief’s thief’

In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do971, Jan. 17, 1989). ① the Defendant entered a restaurant after the instant restaurant and brought damage to the damaged goods, and ② the Defendant kept in a restaurant, warehouse, etc. in the past.