logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
수원지방법원 2016.07.21 2015노4103
절도
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant did not steals cosmetics, etc. in the “F” store operated in Suwon-si E as the victim C, D, and the same business.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. If a partner of the relevant legal principles excludes his/her partnership business property from possession without the consent of another partner and independently moves his/her own control, theft is established (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do1831, Dec. 8, 1987, etc.). (b) The facts recognized by the court below, based on each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, can be acknowledged as follows.

1) From December 2012, the victim C operated a cosmetic store with the trade name “F” in Suwon-si E (hereinafter “instant store”). From November 2013, the victim and the Defendant were to operate the store together.

2) The Defendant mainly sold cosmetics while serving in the instant store, and the victim C and his female and the victim D in de facto marital relationship were mainly in charge of the business outside the said store.

3) The Defendant and the victims began to purchase and sell approximately KRW 5 million and KRW 30 million of waterproof cosmetics paid by the Defendant and KRW 1.7 million of the victim D.

4) On May 2014, the Defendant moved 14 Libered cosmetics sets, ampample 39, etc., which were located in the instant burial, to the warehouse of “I” restaurant near the said burial.

(c)

The following circumstances revealed by the facts of the recognition of a specific judgment and each of the above evidence, i.e., the victim C and D, even before the crime of this case was committed at the court of the court below, there was no sufficient amount of 2 articles in the store of this case. At the time of the crime of this case, it was right to pay attention to the defendant since the inventory of the store of this case did not meet the inventory quantity, and immediately thereafter, the above store'