beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. As the lease contract between the accused and the injured party is lawfully terminated and thus the possession of the plant and machinery of this case is transferred to the injured party, it is de facto possession of the accused.
Since it is not possible to see that the defendant's right of retention is not recognized, the defendant's act of bringing a flag board, etc. in the above factory constitutes larceny.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. From May 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) leased the building of a vertical plant (including its affiliated buildings) owned by the victim D (hereinafter “D”) located in G (hereinafter “D”); and (b) removed machinery and its affiliated equipment installed therein, and operated a factory under the trade name “E”; (c) from January 2015, the Defendant delayed payment of rent, electricity, and completion of industrial construction for at least three months; (d) from April 2015, the reason for immediate rescission of the lease agreement occurred; (e) from September 30, 2015 to September 30, 2015, the Defendant closed the factory and eventually suspended the operation of the factory on the grounds that D immediately fell under the cause for cancellation.
Defendant 1 was kept in the above factory around October 13, 2015 on the ground that there was money received from D in relation to the settlement of funds that Defendant invested in the process of the factory operation due to the discontinuance of the factory operation due to the foregoing reasons.
D With a total of KRW 68,700,000, a total of 144 straw board (one plate), 12 straw board (one plate), and one strawet (one plate), which is an essential part of the vertical machinery owned by D, was stolen, with a total of KRW 68,700,000,000.
B. The lower court’s judgment, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendant’s act of collecting the instant mechanical devices was another person.