(1) The case concerning the attempted thief

In a case where retail machines intend to steals money by putting their grandchildren on the victim’s main money, even though they did not contain money and valuables, the risk of the occurrence of the so-called thief is sufficiently contained in the result of the thief, which constitutes attempted larceny.

Article 342 of the Criminal Act

An applicant for concurrent Office of the Defendant

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Seo Young-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 86No1544,86No156 Decided September 9, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The thirty-five days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the respondent for custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") and state appointed defense counsel are also examined.

Examining the evidence in comparison with the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the facts constituting the crime against the defendant can be sufficiently recognized, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the lack of sufficient deliberation. In addition, as the theory of lawsuit, even though the money was not included in the left cover of the victim's single knives, the so-called "the judgment of the court below" contains the risk of causing the result of larceny. Thus, it is just in the judgment of the court below and there is no violation of the law of misunderstanding the legal principles of larceny, and all arguments

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)