절도등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) a lease contract between the Defendant and the Cho Heung Savings Savings Bank (hereinafter “the Choung Savings Bank”) on the entertainment tavern as indicated in the judgment (hereinafter “instant main points”) is terminated due to the delay of monthly rent from August 2013 by the victim; and (b) a sublease contract between the Defendant and the victim is revoked; and (c) the occupancy of the victim constitutes an illegal possession.
Therefore, after that, the defendant entered the main place.
Even if the crime of entering a building is not established, and in particular, on November 18, 2013, the victim gives up the business and down the building.
In addition, the owner of the collection of goods in the above main place is the bank, and the above main place takes the above main place with the consent, so the defendant does not steals the property of the victim, and thus, it does not constitute larceny.
Even if not,
Even if the above bank believed that it is owned by the defendant and brought about the above collection of goods after the termination of the lease contract, it would be justified because it is an act by legal mistake.
In addition, the defendant's act constitutes an act of self-help or excessive self-help.
Nevertheless, the lower court found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, as alleged by the defendant, the main points of this case were not only a lease contract between the defendant and the defendant, but also a sub-lease contract between the victim and the defendant, and further all the claims for the return of the sub-lease deposit against the defendant by offsetting the defendant's claims such as rent and loan against the victim.
Even if the victim did not return the above main point to the defendant, the possession still moves from the defendant to the victim.