절도
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The court below found the defendant and H not guilty of having provided only the items listed in the equipment sight table attached to the notarial deed for money loan contract for transfer security (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) which was prepared and executed after borrowing money from E, and the defendant's possession of the above items on the ground that it is not the object of the E security right. This judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. A. Around July 12, 2011, the Defendant borrowed KRW 400 million from the victim E at the office of the Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant, at Sungsung-si, and transferred all the facilities installed and used in the above D as security, and the possession of machinery, etc., to the victim.
The Defendant, at around 22:00 on July 20, 2012, carried out the television amounting to KRW 500,000,000 at the market price, which was installed and used in the above D (F).
Accordingly, the defendant taken the goods of the defendant, which is the object of the victim's right, and obstructed the victim's exercise of right.
B. On the grounds of detailed reasoning, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the instant facts charged on the grounds that it is reasonable in light of the party’s interpretation or empirical rule to deem that the scope of E’s right to collateral security was limited to the goods indicated in the attachment table by preparing the instant notarial deed, and that the scope of E’s right to collateral security was limited to the goods indicated in the attachment table, considering the relationship between the parties, the details and text of the instant notarial deed, the procedure for subsequent enforcement, and the appraised value of the object, etc.
In light of the record, the evidence of this case is examined.