Whether an occupant of a building obligated to specify is a person who occupies another person's goods in connection with the exercise of rights.

On the other hand, as long as an article is possessed by legitimate raw milk, the possessor is a person who occupies another's object in the exercise of rights if the possessor continues to possess it without his/her intention, even though there is a circumstance to issue an order to the owner thereafter.

Article 323 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4293 Form 448 delivered on September 14, 1960

A

Attorney B

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 76No1092 delivered on April 27, 1977

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel are examined.

First, as to the first ground for appeal:

According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the defendant could recognize the fact that he removed four copies of the ceiling and floor floor board of a room residing in the above C at around 19:00 on April 17, 1973, prior to receiving an order from the victim C, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the court below recognized the criminal facts without any evidence, and since the evidence pointed out in the lawsuit contrary to the facts admitted by the court of first instance is obvious that the court below rejected it, it cannot be said that the court below violated the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and therefore, it cannot be admitted as a arguments to attack the judgment of the court

As to the second ground for appeal:

In accordance with Article 323 of the Criminal Code, "the possession of another person" means the possession by title, that is, the possession by a person who has the right to possess an object based on a legitimate crude oil, but in this case, if the possessor continues to possess the object without his own consent, even though there were circumstances that require the owner to specify it later, as long as the possession by legitimate crude oil has occurred as a group of possession based on a legitimate crude oil, the possessor shall be the person who has the possession of another person's object under the same Article (see this Article, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4293Du448, Sept. 14, 1960).

In sum, the grounds of appeal cannot be adopted by denying the facts charged in this case by either denying the lower court’s exclusive authority without regard to the preparation of evidence and fact-finding or on the ground of an independent opinion.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)