beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles brought about a Handphone (hereinafter “Handphone of this case”) of a victim on the premise of returning the victim’s mind at a later return place. Thus, there was no intention of unlawful acquisition. The defendant, who gets the victim’s timber and gets the victim’s wall off with the wall, destroyed a glass door on the wall of the wall with a blue because it was obvious that the blue would have lost the center, and that the blue would have lost the center, and there was no intention of damage to property.
Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since it rendered a guilty judgment on each of the instant crimes.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, 1) as to the larceny part, the intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny legal doctrine
The term "right holder" means an intention to use or dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property, and the intention to permanently hold the economic interest of such goods is not required. Even in cases where the possession of another person is deprived for the purpose of temporary use, it cannot be deemed that the use of the goods itself is a case where the economic value of the goods itself is consumed to a considerable extent or it is occupied for a considerable period, or where the goods are abandoned at a place different from their original place, or that it is temporarily used (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012). B) In full view of the circumstances described in the judgment of the court below and the following circumstances recognized by the record, it is recognized that the defendant has an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition, and therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
(1) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant forcedly carried a Handphone against the victim’s will (in this case, the Defendant did so).