A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On July 2, 2014, at around 18:56, the Defendant: (a) used the gap between the victim’s cell phone livers and surveillance neglected in the “Dobongdo Seo-ro, 556” underground resting room located in Dobong-gu Seoul, Dobong-gu, Seoul, in which the market price was filled by the victim D; and (b) cut off the victim’s cell phone livers by inserting it into the Defendant’s bank.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. CCTV photographs and CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the protocol of seizure (voluntary submission), list of seizure, and photograph of seized articles;

1. The judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel regarding the crime under Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the defendant and his/her defense counsel did not

The argument is asserted.

The Criminal Act refers to the removal of possession by a person other than himself/herself from possession against the will of the possessor and the removal of possession by himself/herself or a third party. The intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention of excluding the right holder of another person's property and to use and dispose of another person's property in accordance with his/her economic usage, such as his/her own property. It merely infringes on another person's possession.

Therefore, theft is not established immediately. However, if there is an intention of infringing on the ownership of property or other equivalent rights, it is not necessarily necessary to hold it permanently, and regardless of whether it is an intention to acquire the property itself or an intention to acquire only the value of the property (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do14139, Feb. 21, 2014). We look at the following points recognized by the evidence mentioned above. In other words, the defendant still remains in the rest room, and the victim still loses the mobile phone, despite being able to have the owner of the mobile phone, and the victim has lost the mobile phone.