beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) when a dispute arises between the defendant and his/her business relationship, the defendant filed a thief complaint with the intent of not paying the agreed amount; and (b) the defendant did not commit theft against the external hard disks in the face of the victim.
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny of relevant legal principles refers to the intention to use or dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property by excluding right holder, and the intention to possess the economic interest of the goods permanently is not required. Even in cases where the possession of another person is deprived of for the purpose of temporary use, where the use of the goods itself is consumed to the extent that the economic value of the goods itself is considerably significant, or where the goods in question are occupied for a considerable period of time, or where the goods are abandoned at a place different from their original place, it shall not be deemed that
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132 Decided July 12, 2012). B.
Judgment
The court below duly adopted and examined the evidence and the testimony of F and D of the witness F of the trial party, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below. ① The victim agreed upon the defendant's operation of corporation E with the defendant on March 21, 201 when the dispute arose in the course of operation of corporation E with the defendant, and on March 21, 201, the defendant made a statement to the victim to refer obscenity to the victim and to pressure the victim. ② The victim found the external dyp in the book because of the defendant's abnormal thoughts in the above speech and behavior. ② The victim found the external dyp in the book but did not think of the fact that the case was in the face of the victim's appearance, and then the victim was "the defendant" from H around March 30, 2011.