beta
Text
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
3. The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The court below accepted this part of the facts charged and convicted the defendant, despite the fact that the defendant did not intend to illegally obtain it while temporarily using the victim's Obane owned by D, and he did not intend to obtain it. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intention of unlawful acquisition, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment and fine of 300,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. On July 16, 2013, around 12:30, the Defendant discovered that a single Elim CT100 Orala (hereinafter “the instant Orala”), the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 500,00,000 owned by the victim D, is parked at the front line of the following city: (a) and (b) drive the vehicle with a view to an neglect of surveillance, using the gap in surveillance.
B. 1) Determination 1) In a case where the property of another person is used without the consent of the possessor without the consent of the possessor, if the property itself is consumed or used to a considerable extent of economic value of the property, or is dumped in a place other than its original place after the use or is occupied for a long time without the return, the intent of unlawful acquisition may be recognized by deeming that the use is intended to infringe the ownership or the right. However, it is reasonable to deem that the intent of unlawful acquisition cannot be acknowledged because it cannot be said that there is an intention of infringing on the ownership or the right, in a case where the consumption of the value due to the use is insignificant and the return was made immediately after the use is made so minor and minor that the consumption of the value due to the use would be disregarded (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do118, Apr. 24, 192). 2)