The intention of illegal acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny is that the intention of acquiring only the value of the object or the equivalent right, even though the intention of acquiring the ownership or the equivalent right is not required permanently to possess the economic benefit of the object, that is, the intention of acquiring only the value of the object.

Defendant and one other

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 72No1819 delivered on November 17, 1972

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The Prosecutor of Busan District Prosecutors' Office shall examine the grounds for appeal.

In the criminal law, the intention of illegal acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny is that the intention of acquiring the property permanently infringes on the ownership or the equivalent right, i.e., the intention of acquiring only the value of the property or the equivalent right, even though the intention of acquiring the property permanently is not required, (see Supreme Court Decision 64Do795 delivered on February 24, 1965). Therefore, even if the person who has deprived of possession of the property contrary to the intention of another person is not the intention of permanent possession of the property, but only the intention of securing the claim against the owner, the person who has deprived of possession of the property is not the intention of permanent possession of the property, but has the intention of securing the security against the owner, so long as the possession of the property is infringed on in order to exclude the possession as the owner of the property and acquire the security value of the property.

Nevertheless, in this case where the court below rendered a verdict of innocence on the charge of larceny on the grounds that the defendants' possession of the article in question against the debtor's will was deprived of the possession of the article in question for the purpose of securing one's own claim, it cannot be deemed that the defendants had the intent of illegal acquisition, which is the requirement for larceny, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in interpreting the so-called intention of illegal acquisition in the case of larceny. Therefore, the

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who participated in accordance with Articles 390, 391, and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Justices B-Bhan (Presiding Judge) and B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-Jed