특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
No. 11 of the seized evidence shall be the victim's name unfortunateer.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the criminal facts of paragraph (1) of the crime in the case of a mistake of facts, the Defendant discovered a wall that is far away from the passage while getting on and getting off the city bus at the time of the instant case, and the passengers who appear inside the bus appear to be a main agent, once he left the bus with the above wall and failed to report the loss to the police box in the nearby police box, but failed to report the loss to the nearby police box because there was no police officer serving in the police box, and thereafter keep it as they are.
No. 300,000
Therefore, the Defendant did not steals the wallets stated in this part of the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny as to the assertion of mistake of facts refers to the intention to use or dispose of another person's goods as his own property, and it is not required to hold the economic interest of the goods permanently. Even in the case of deprivation of another person's possession for the purpose of temporary use, it shall not be deemed to be a temporary use in a case where it has been occupied significantly for a long time without the intention to return it, or where it is abandoned at a place different from its original place. Thus, there is no intention to acquire it
(See Supreme Court Decision 88Do917 delivered on September 13, 1988, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the health stand in this case. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the victim was kneeeeed on the door on which he was on board the bus, and thereafter, he stated that he did not have the wall of this case (Evidence No. 549 through 550 of the evidence record). The defendant stated differently from the facts that he acquired the wall of this case.