The case holding that there cannot be an intention of unlawful acquisition in case where he brought about the goods of a person in a relationship of internal relations and returned them when he gets them back, and bring them back again to continue the relationship of internal relations.

The case holding that if a woman who was in a relationship with a female has brought and stored the female's goods for the purpose of benefiting from continuing her internal relations with a view to recovering such relations, and is found to have been found, the woman's goods have been returned at that time and brought about the goods in mind to continue her internal relations with the female's family members, and that the woman's family members did not contact the fact after being kept in custody and did not use or consume it, the woman's intent of unlawful acquisition cannot be deemed to exist.

Article 329 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 91No933 delivered on December 20, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that: (a) Non-Indicted 1, who had established an internal relationship with the defendant based on macroscopic evidence, returned the defendant to Non-Indicted 1 and tried to continue internal relations; (b) Non-Indicted 1, who visited the defendant again, visited Non-Indicted 1's apartment; (c) he did not have his mother, who was on the job, and did not have any other things, and (d) did not have any other things to be used for the purpose of returning them to the non-Indicted 2, who was anticipated to have found that he would have been able to recover if he had the son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is correct, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as argued by the theory of the lawsuit, and it is not possible to apply the crime of concealing property without any amendment to the bill of amendment. The arguments of the lawsuit cannot be adopted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)