beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant brought waste materials upon the request of the staff of the victim company or upon his/her permission to bring waste to the victim company. Thus, such an act of the defendant cannot be deemed to constitute larceny.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. The judgment of the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim company entered into a "waste disposal contract" with the waste disposal business entity prior to the crime of this case, and has disposed of waste materials discharged from the victim company (Evidence 10, 48 pages 10, 48 pages 2), and ② the defendant sought from the victim company around July 2016 whether the victim company would bring waste materials. However, the victim company was in charge of waste disposal affairs.
D means that the Defendant “it shall not take place without permission because there is a separate processing company,” and that rejected it (Evidence No. 11, 35, 2, 22). ③ The Defendant made a statement that he did not know about the name or post of his employee, whether he has the authority to dispose of waste materials, etc. (Evidence No. 1, 62, 63, 20, 20, 20) by asserting that the investigation agency would bring waste materials with permission from the employee of the victim company.
Even if the Defendant stated that the time was around February 2016 (Evidence 20: 20 of the evidence record) and stated that D should not bring waste to the Defendant, so long as the Defendant’s act of collecting waste materials of this case was permitted by the victim company.
Comprehensively taking account of the facts that it is difficult to recognize, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the theft of waste materials owned by the victim company, such as written in the facts charged.
Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.