[1] The meaning of "the intention of unlawful acquisition" required for the establishment of larceny

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view that there was an intent of unlawful acquisition, as an act of destroying evidence for murdering, where the Defendant loaded the wall that kills the victim's homicide with other evidence materials, such as golf veget and clothes, into his own vehicle, and loaded it at the garbage incineration place, it is difficult to view that there was an intent of unlawful acquisition

[1] The intent to acquire illegal property necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention to use and dispose of another person's property, such as his own property, in accordance with the economic usage.

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view that there was an intent of unlawful acquisition, as an act to destroy evidence for the crime of murder, in the case where the defendant loaded the homicide that was taken out in the homicide of the victim's homicide together with other evidentiary materials, such as golf glas and clothes, on his own vehicle, and loaded it in the garbage incineration place

[1] Article 329 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 329 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 61Do179 delivered on June 28, 1961 (Gong1999Sang, 73) Supreme Court Decision 91Do3149 delivered on September 8, 1992 (Gong1992, 2923) Supreme Court Decision 95Do3057 delivered on May 10, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1939) decided April 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 950)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon High Court Decision 2000No108 delivered on July 14, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

The expression "an intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny" refers to an intention to use and dispose of another person's property, such as his/her own property, in accordance with its economic usage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do3149, Sept. 8, 1992; 95Do3057, May 10, 1996; 99Do519, Apr. 9, 199).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant of the larceny among the facts charged of this case on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the defendant's act of taking the wall out from the main money of the victim killed was ultimately an intention of unlawful acquisition, since it was for the victim to destroy evidence for committing the crime of murder, since it is difficult to view that there was an intention of unlawful acquisition. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the intention of unlawful acquisition in relation to larceny, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)