Whether it constitutes a separate fraud in case where a person who stolen a pawned article receives it by deception, and obtains it by deception.

In a case where the third party who believed that the stolen pawn ticket was delivered to a third party and had him/her find out it, and made it false, and the third party who believed that the pawn ticket was issued to him/her, made the employee deceiving him/her by presenting the pawn ticket and delivered the pawned article, it constitutes a crime of fraud.

Articles 329 and 347(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Do2817 Delivered on November 26, 1974

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 80No2723 delivered on July 19, 1980

The non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below is that "the defendant sent a pawn ticket that was stolen to the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, 15:00 on December 21, 1979, to the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu, 15:00, 529, to the Kim Jong-hee, who was the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, 1979, and found it false, and let the Dong who believed it make a false statement to find it. The defendant immediately presented the pawn ticket at 1, 539-1, 539-dong, Seoul, 19, and received the said pawn ticket from the victim's disease, which was equivalent to 250,000 won at one market price, and acquired it," it cannot be deemed that the defendant was guilty of a new fraud even if he received the pawn ticket from the above Kim Jong-gu to the head of the non-indicted Kim, or that he was guilty of a new fraud."

2. The disposal of so-called stolens does not constitute a separate crime because it is a factual act incidental to the crime of property, but it is reasonable to view the stolen pawned pawneds by deceiving the pawneds to be an act that infringes new legal interests and interests, and thereby constitutes a crime of fraud. It is not a subsequent act of larceny (see Supreme Court Decision 74Do2817, Nov. 26, 1974). Therefore, in this case, it is reasonable to conclude that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to ex post facto punishment for not guilty on the ground that the act of deceiving the employees to present the pawneds and taking them over, which is a pawned article, constitutes a crime of fraud under Article 347 of the Criminal Act, by deeming the stolen pawned items to be an act subsequent to the larceny, not an act of larceny (see Supreme Court Decision 74Do2817, Nov. 26, 1974).

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding this point is reversed and remanded for a final judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)