The intention of unlawful acquisition in larceny

The intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention of excluding the right holder, to use and dispose of another person's goods as his own property, and is not required to permanently hold the economic interest of the goods. Even in the case of deprivation of another person's possession for the purpose of temporary use, it shall not be deemed as temporary use in a case where one occupies for a considerably long time without the intention of returning it, or abandons it to another person from its original place. Thus, there is no intention of acquisition.

Article 329 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do392 Delivered on December 26, 1984

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yoon Jin-han

Daegu District Court Decision 88No235 delivered on April 15, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

80 days out of detention days before the final appeal shall be included in the penalty of the original judgment.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel

The intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention of excluding the right holder, to use and dispose of another person's goods as his own property, and it is not required to permanently hold the economic interest of the goods. Even in the case of deprivation of another person's possession for the purpose of temporary use, it shall not be deemed to be a temporary use in the case of long-term possession or abandonment of another person's property in a place different from its original place without the intention of return (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do392 delivered on December 26, 1984). Therefore, the defendant's argument that it is impossible to recognize the intention of unlawful acquisition as to the so-called of this case cannot be accepted.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The reason why the defendant repented in depth the crime of this case and caused damage to the defendant does not constitute an appropriate ground for appeal in this case where the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for less than 10 years.

3. The grounds for appeal are without merit, and part of the days of detention after the appeal is dismissed are included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)