Although a charge of larceny is not recognized, if a crime of larceny is committed in accordance with the contents of the complaint, the crime of larceny is committed (negative)

Of the facts of the accusation that the Defendant filed a theft of the original timber owned by the Defendant, the said original timber owned by the Defendant rather than the ownership of the Defendant, and even if it does not constitute larceny, if the so-called Defendant’s so-called obstruction of exercise of rights constitutes a crime, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s complaint

Article 156 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Attorney Park Chang-chul

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 79No8101 delivered on April 1, 1980

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

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below and the court of first instance, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant, who submitted a written complaint to the investigation agency, constitutes a crime of false accusation on the ground that the defendant's so-called "the defendant who submitted the written complaint to the investigation agency is a so-called crime of false accusation, who confirmed that the 300 raw trees cut out in the forest and fields as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance,

However, according to the records, when the defendant concludes a contract with the non-indicted in order to purchase the above forest land from the non-indicted in a new factory site, he cut the standing timber at his own expense and used it as a result of the construction of the factory, and the defendant transferred it to the non-indicted. At his own expense, the defendant left the above forest land to be used for the construction of the factory and placed a supervisor, and kept them. But it can be recognized that the non-indicted arbitrarily collected more than 300 parts of the original tree with the view to avoiding the snow of the supervisor, and disposed of it to others. Thus, if the above original part belongs to the defendant, the non-indicted's so-called element of larceny is satisfied, and even if the ownership of the above original part was owned by the non-indicted in the above original part, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to punishment of the defendant, which constitutes the crime of larceny, and thus, it cannot be determined that it constitutes a so-called crime of interference with the exercise of rights by the non-indicted in order to use the original part lawfully possessed by the defendant.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul District Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)