beta
Main Issues
Article 74 of the Military Criminal Act: Legal nature of the crime of loss of military supplies (=Negligence)
Summary of Judgment
The crime of loss of military supplies stipulated in Article 74 of the Military Criminal Act refers to a so-called crime of negligence committed by a person who is responsible for keeping goods for military use as prescribed in the same Article, but neglects his duty of care as a good custodian, thereby losing the possession of goods without his intention. As such, since the defendant (the small ledger) starts from the vehicle without leaving the gun and the seat belt in front of the entire loan, even though the rest has been completed during the break time without leaving the gun and the seat belt in front of the entire loan, the crime of loss of military supplies is established.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 74 of the Military Criminal Act
Escopics
Defendant
upper and high-ranking persons
Defendant
Defense Counsel
Attorney Shin Jae-chul
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 83 High Court Decision 352 delivered on December 6, 1983
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Article 74 of the Military Criminal Act refers to a so-called crime of negligence committed by a person who is responsible for keeping goods for the military use of the same assistance plant in the military, who is negligent in performing his duty of care as a good keeper and loses the possession of goods without resorting to his will.
According to the records, the defendant was on board the fleet 331, who was on the front of the fleet 331 and was on temporary rest in the street in front of the fleet Dogri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-shot (the military supplies, No. 2649284), and was released above the front section of the military supplies carried in order to be able to dived-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-do, and was negligent in performing his duty of care as a good manager, such as wearing the front section and wearing the front section after the rest in the assembly area. Thus, the defendant did not appear to have any mental disorder without any evidence.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)