The nature of larceny in the case of larceny in a case where the dopingr, which pretended to purchase precious metal at a gold bank, flocks, etc., will come to the toilet after being flocked and escaped.

If the defendant pretended to purchase precious metals from the bank in the management of the victim and received the net sprink, etc. from the victim to enter the toilet and escaped, the above net sprink, etc. was still under the possession of the victim until her escape. Therefore, it is justifiable to view it as a charge of larceny.

Article 329 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

A

Defendant

Attorney B

Daegu High Court Decision 94No71 delivered on May 11, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are also examined.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's assistance in finding the crime of this case is acceptable, and the defendant's assistance in finding the habitual nature of the theft against the defendant, and rejected the argument that the defendant was in a mental and physical state due to the use of the cryp as at the time of the crime of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to habitual offenders, such as the theory of litigation.

As determined by the court below, in a case where the defendant, as if he were to purchase precious metals from the victim's bank of management, got the net sprink, etc. from the victim and runs away from the toilet, he shall be deemed to have been under the possession of the victim until he escaped (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do3115 delivered on February 22, 1983). Thus, the court below's action against the defendant who was placed at the rate of punishment for larceny is legitimate, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for less than 10 years, mistake of facts or grounds for unfair sentencing cannot be considered as legitimate grounds for appeal. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)