Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was requested by C, the owner of BWts' car, to lease the vehicle to D, and the victim E was a person who leased and operated the said car from F to work together with D.

At around 00:00 on March 1, 2020, the Defendant: (a) used the key of the vehicle located in the G Building parking lot in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si; and (b) used the key of the vehicle possessed by the victim, and stolen the vehicle by driving the passenger car at the market price in which the victim parked.

Summary of Evidence

1. The prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused (including E statements);

1. The police inquiry into the police statement of E;

1. Each motor vehicle model contract, details of account transfer, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. The defendant and his defense counsel brought the instant vehicle without the victim's permission.

It argues that this does not constitute larceny merely because it was recovered from the owner to return the vehicle to the owner.

B. The theft under the Criminal Act refers to the movement of the object owned by a person other than himself/herself or a third person to his/her own or a third person by excluding the possession against the will of the possessor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11771, Apr. 26, 2012). Moreover, larceny is established by committing an act of excluding possession against the will of the possessor, unless it is deemed that the possessor had explicitly or implicitly consented to the transfer of possession at the time of taking property.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5064, Feb. 25, 2010). Moreover, it is reasonable to deem that the act of taking a certain thing against the possessor’s will constitutes the owner’s interest as a result of the act, or that the owner’s constructive consent was obtained.