beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);
A. Fact misunderstanding 1) The 7th floor of the instant C building or the 10th floor D private teaching institute building (hereinafter “the instant damaged goods”) is an object that the owner gives up ownership, and thus, it is not another’s property (Ⅰ). 2) The Defendant mistakens that the instant damaged goods were abandoned by another person even if the other person was not abandoned by the other person. Since there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding, the Defendant did not have any intention to larceny (Ⅱ. 3) and the Defendant did not have any intention to acquire larceny again after 1 week, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to obtain unjust enrichment (negative. 3). (b) The first deliberation type of the 1st deliberation on sentencing (gold KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. 1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the victim B’s 1 right to the criminal law, and 1 right to the Criminal Litigation Act, which was purchased from September 5, 2016, the date of the instant crime, on September 3, 2016, by the victim’s 2-month period from September 5, 2016, the victim’s 1 right to the Defendant’s 1 right to the Defendant’s 1 right to the Defendant’s 1 right to the Defendant’s 1 right to the Defendant’s 1 right to the Defendant’s 1 right to the Defendant’s 2nd day of September 3, 2016.
B. All of the damaged goods of this case do not seem to have been left on the right box for a long time with “2016,” and in light of such circumstances, the state and economic value of the damaged goods of this case, the place where the Defendant discovered them, and the circumstances at the time, the goods of this case are placed on the right box cannot be deemed to be an object whose ownership is waived solely on the ground that the damaged goods of this case are placed on the right box.
In addition, in the case of one of the owners of one’s family affairs, one of the “Nebluri Sluri Sluri Sluri Sluri Korea”, one of the “comfort of Criminal Litigation Act”, and one of the “comfort of three-year call in Criminal Act”, one of the owners was lost.