misunderstanding of waiver of ownership of illegal acquired property, and thief;

A thief’s criminal intent refers to the perception that another person’s possession is transferred to himself/herself or under the possession of a third party against his/her will, and if another person renounces his/her ownership and acquires it as a stolen article, the thief’s criminal intent cannot be recognized unless there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding it.

Article 329 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 87No7300 decided May 6, 198

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

A thief’s criminal intent refers to the perception that another person’s possession under his/her possession is transferred to himself/herself or to a third party against his/her will. Thus, if another person renounces his/her ownership and acquires it as a stolen article, it is difficult to recognize the thief’s criminal intent unless there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding as such.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, at around 02:30 on May 8, 1987, the court below recognized that the defendant stolen the amount equivalent to KRW 1,200 of the two wounded persons owned by the victim's leaps, by taking advantage of the gaps in the management of the Lee Young-hee in front of his leuk-hee, and recognized that the defendant stolen the amount of KRW 1,200.

However, according to the records, at the time of the police investigation, the defendant was accompanying in order for the defendant to collect the stolen water before the cleaning volume on the new wall as a high-class driver. The two wounded persons of this case are placed beside the garbage tank, and the newspaper, etc. which seems to have been covered by the garbage, are known to have been abandoned, and the paper and the boxes have been loaded in the Defendant Libya, and thereafter, they have no intention to commit larceny until the court below rendered the judgment.

However, according to the testimony of Lee Young-hee at the court of first instance, the above two wounded persons were supplied by putting two parts of the above Lee Young-hee's business management to the large Sclovas Market and open the newspaper outside the new wall by covering the newspaper with a view to recovering the above leculation. As such, if the above leclus were covered by the newspaper and was placed adjacent to the above Schlage, the above leclusium was inside the new wall. As such, if the above leclus were placed adjacent to the store or a waste door, the owner may waive ownership in the objective situation, and there is no possibility that the above leclus might be mistaken for the object. As such, the court below should have tried to examine more detailed circumstances in which the above leclus were placed, and further to see whether the defendant can be recognized as the criminal intent of larceny.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded as it is difficult to maintain the judgment of the court below due to the incomplete deliberation and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-seok (Presiding Justice)