Time to commence the commission of night-time theft;

In order to take place for larceny, there must be a close act that infringes on the de facto control over another's property for the purpose of larceny. Therefore, if the defendant intrudes within the boundary of another's wall and is discovered when he was able to see the situation inside the house in the front of the Dokdong Dokdong Dokdong Dokdong Dokdong Dok, it cannot be said that the execution of

Article 330 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Do507 delivered on April 28, 1970 (Supreme Court Decision 8430 delivered on Supreme Court Decision 18Nu75 delivered on April 28, 197) and summary of decision Article 330(2)134 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Seoul District Court Incheon District Court (67Da1531)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

150 days out of the number of days of detention in the court below's decision shall be included in the above punishment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the defendant, as the first ceh of the original ceh, stolen goods into Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2's office located in the judgment, and the defendant, as the first celebb, stolen goods to the clbbs in which he had taken the knbs of the victim and escaped to the knbs, although Nonindicted Party 2, who had taken a view of the situation of the house, the court below, despite the fact that the court below adopted the protocol of examination of the suspect who stated the police's statement as it was stated in the prosecutor's office and the witness's statement at the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by violating the rules of evidence, and the facts that the defendant stated in the second knbs, even if it is acknowledged that it was in violation of the rules of evidence, the crime of attempted larceny in night residence and the crime of injury in robbery, but the court below did not regard it as above,

In this context, the court below examined ex officio the following facts: "When the defendant reported the network in front of the house held by the defendant 1 in the court below at the time and time of the ruling, and when the defendant intrudes over the house in front of the house in front of the above house and looked into the situation inside the house in front of the house, it is clear that the victim non-indicted 5, who is the ground of the camping, knew that Non-indicted 1 was discovered and escaped to the non-indicted 4, etc., and knew that he was arrested there was a large amount of 200 meters away from the above place, when the victim non-indicted 5, who was a ground of the camping, escaped, the defendant 1 got knife with the part of the above victim for the purpose of evading arrest, and caused the knife to receive the part of the above victim's clothes for three weeks of medical treatment, it is obvious that the crime was committed by applying Article 337 of the Criminal Act to the crime."

However, in order to take place for larceny, there must be a close act that infringes on the de facto control of another's property for the purpose of larceny, and if the defendant intrudes within the house of his own decision beyond the house of his own decision and is discovered when he was in the situation of his inside the house of his own, it cannot be deemed that the commencement of the commission of larceny has yet to be made in this case, but the judgment of the court below on the premise that the commencement of the commission of larceny had already been made, which was based on the premise that the commission of the commission of larceny had already been made, does not go against the misconception of facts affecting the judgment or the criticism that the commission of the violation of law has been committed, it is correct that the judgment of the court below is reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and it is again decided as follows.

(Criminal) On June 20, 1966, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year for special larceny in the Seoul Civil District Court and the Incheon Criminal District Court, and was released on May 26, 1967.

(1) On May 31, 1967, at around 04:00, the victim non-indicted 6 collection plan was taken by the victim non-indicted 6, the victim was stolen at the market price of 10,000 won per day before the shock day owned by the victim.

(2) On June 13, 13, 04:40 on the same year, the defendant 1 reported the network in front of his house, and the defendant invadedd the residence of the above victim because he went into the zone beyond his house, with the aim of theft of money and valuables by going to the house of the Incheon City, Magdong (hereinafter omitted) and going to the house of the non-indicted 3.

(3) When we look at the inside of the police officer in front of that police officer's house, the head of the police officer's house was discovered to the police officer, and the head of the police officer's house was discovered to the police officer in front of that police officer's house, and the head of the police officer's house with the victim non-indicted 5 who was in the middle of that police officer's house, and the head of the police officer's house was

The evidence relationship recognized by this Court is the same as the result of the oral argument and the original adjudication at the time of the trial, and therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Code.

The so-called "(1)" in the judgment of the court below in the case of the defendant is under Article 330 of the Criminal Act, and the so-called "(2)" in the judgment of the court below falls under Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the same Act and Article 257 (1) of the same Act, since there are criminal records in the judgment, the so-called "(3) of the judgment of the court below is subject to heavy penalty for each repeated crime under Article 35 of the same Act, and since there are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act and Article 50 of the same Act are the most severe punishment under Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act and Article 50 of the same Act, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years within the scope of the punishment aggravated by concurrent crimes with the punishment under Article 57 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Jeong Tae-ho (Presiding Judge)