The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. 피고인에 대한 이 사건 공소사실 중 특수 절도의 점의 요지는, 피고인은 제 1 심 공동 피고인 A( 이하 ‘A’ 이라고만 한다) 등과 합동하여 피해자의 사무실 안에 들어가 그 곳에 있던 피해자 소유의 귀갑 안경, 듀퐁 라이터, 삼성 노트북, 차량 열쇠, 법인 명의 통장 등 서류철과 피해자가 점유하고 있던

A’s family members, with the head of Tong, a certified copy of resident registration, a certificate of seal impression, a copy of a driver’s license under H name, a copy of a resident registration certificate, a certificate of personal seal in I’s name, a copy of a resident registration certificate, and a copy of a passbook (hereinafter “documents in this case”).

The court below held that the documents of this case were owned by the victim by receiving the documents of this case from A.

Based on the judgment of the court of first instance which found the above facts charged guilty, and dismissed the defendant's appeal.

2. However, the lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of the theft of the instant documents cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

A. The Criminal Act refers to the removal of possession of a person other than himself/herself from possession against the will of the possessor and the transfer of possession to his/her or a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2963, Sept. 28, 2006). B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following.

(1) On June 2015, A, a doctor, became aware of the victim’s establishment of the hospital, and upon receiving a request from the injured party to deliver documents for replacement of executive officers, such as N’s representative director, he/she operated, and delivered the instant documents in his/her wife G, head H, and father I to the victim.

(2) On August 19, 2015, the victim took advantage of the instant documents to G, in-house directors H, G, and audit by the representative director of N Company G, in-house directors H, G, and I.