절도
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, even though the Defendant did not have any intention to steals the gist of the grounds for appeal.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. A. Around 11:00 on February 27, 2017, the Defendant: (a) sold and stolen a container stuff (3m x 6m) equivalent to KRW 1.7 million at the victim’s market price (3m x 6m) and a container stuff (3m x 9m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
B. The lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, stated that E had consistently sold the container to the Defendant, namely, ① from the investigative agency to the lower court’s court’s court, and ② from February 22, 2017, the dispute was settled by E, which led to the occurrence of the dispute. If E sold the instant container to the Defendant, it is unnecessary to contact C with the Defendant as to whether to recover the instant container first, and ③ C confirmed the fact that the instant container was dead, and made a telephone conversation with the Defendant via E, and the Defendant did not purchase the container only, and the Defendant did not say that he was entitled to receive expenses for exercising the right of retention, ④ The Defendant asserted that there was no such financial dispute between E and the Defendant, considering that there was no reason to pay the expenses for E’s testimony in the investigative agency and the lower court.