[특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반,절도,장물보관][집35(3)형,731;공1987.12.1.(813),1750]
Requirements for the establishment of storage of stolen
When it was known that the stolen property is a stolen while being kept without knowledge of the fact that it was impossible to return the stolen property, and the stolen property continues to be kept even though it was not possible to return it, and thereby making it difficult to exercise the legitimate right to request a return by the victim, it constitutes the crime of keeping the stolen property.
Article 362 of the Criminal Act
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Yoon Jae-sik
Daegu High Court Decision 87No763 delivered on June 25, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
50 days out of detention days before the final appeal shall be included in the penalty of the original judgment.
On the grounds of appeal by the defendant and defense counsel, according to the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant asked the issuing bank of the check of this case about April 27, 1986 and continued to keep the check of this case after he was aware of the fact being a stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation, violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, and violation of the reasons. According to the records, it is recognized that the defendant made the objection of each protocol of examination prepared by the prosecutor during the first trial of the court of first instance, and there is no reason to see that the above protocol was prepared falsely without going through the procedure such as inspection of the protocol by the participating prosecutor, and the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court below that maintained the above protocol of this case is just and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit.
The court below's decision that maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which maintained the so-called crime of stolen property because it is not recognized that it was impossible for the defendant to return stolen property by making it difficult for the defendant to exercise his/her right to request the return of stolen property and maintaining illegal financial status by keeping stolen property while he/she was aware of the fact that the stolen property is stolen. Since the court below's decision that maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which held the so-called stolen property as the crime of stolen property cannot be recognized, even though the defendant was unaware of the fact that the check was stolen, and he/she was unable to return it even though he/she was aware of the fact that the check was a stolen property, even though it did not constitute the crime of stolen property custody, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the fact that the court below recognized the crime of stolen property custody and affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it cannot be recognized that the defendant's return of stolen property itself was not possible in the process of fact-finding.
The arguments are without merit, and they are dismissed, and applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act to 50 days of detention before and after the final appeal, 50 days of detention before and after the final appeal are to be included in the punishment of the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)