Whether or not water stored by installing a special structure in the drainage way of the land improvement cooperative becomes an object of larceny.

In order to put water into one's own discussion, even if special structures are installed in violation of the rules of the Land Improvement Association, and stored water in one's own discussion, it is recognized that the water cannot be de facto or legally controlled by the person who prevents the water from being stored in his/her own debate, and therefore, the water cannot be the object of larceny.

Article 329 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 63No225 delivered on April 4, 1964

The appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds of appeal by the chief prosecutor of the Jeonju District Prosecutors' Office is that, even if Nonindicted Party 1, the victim, has no ownership on the installation of a special structure and stored it, the object of larceny is the object of the crime of larceny, and even if stored in violation of the rules of the Land Improvement Association, the object of larceny is actually controlled, and the defendant has waived the use of the water without using it, and it cannot be viewed as a lawful exercise of the right of repair.

However, according to the facts established by the court below, since anyone can put water in a waterway into his own debate and use water by preventing any member from using water. Thus, even if the victim installed a special structure to put water in his own debate and stored water, it shall not be deemed that anyone actually or legally controlled by law. Thus, this water shall not be an object of larceny, and it shall not be an issue in this case where the defendant's act does not lead to larceny.

Therefore, it can not be adopted that the victim's water stored is the object of larceny.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court