beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the possession of larceny, although it is not possible to establish the crime of larceny, since the part 50,000 won paper 50,000 won as stated in the facts charged of this case, is an article out of the possession of the victim, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant belongs to the possession of the bank.
The punishment (fine 300,000) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
Judgment
According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below on February 5, 2014, the court below found the following facts: around 13:39, the victim C left 50,000 won 4,00 won 5,00 won f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f.
Judgment
as a object of larceny, possession means de facto control over property.
The victim is the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14554, Apr. 29, 2010).