logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.02.21 2017노4432
건조물침입등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (e.g., intention) merely brought about the Defendant to have the Victim own the Victim in order to receive a loan from the Victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1548, Feb. 2, 2007).

Judgment

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Criminal Act refers to the act of excluding possession of the object owned by another person against the will of the possessor and moving it to his or her own possession or a third party, and the intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny is deemed to be an intention of the possessor.

The term "an intention to use or dispose of another person's goods, such as his own property, by excluding the right holder. It refers to the intention to use or dispose of another person's goods in accordance with the economic usage. Although mere infringement of possession alone cannot constitute larceny, it is not necessary to permanently hold the economic interest of the goods. It is sufficient that the intention to acquire only the value of the goods, i.e., the intention to acquire ownership or the equivalent right, or the intention to obtain only the value of the goods, regardless of whether it

In addition, even though it is for the purpose of securing bonds, larceny is constituted by the act of excluding possession against the will of the possessor, unless it is recognized that there is an explicit consent of the possessor with regard to the transfer of possession at the time of possession, and in such a case, there was no intention of unlawful acquisition, unless there is any special circumstance.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8081, Mar. 24, 2006). 2), the defendant driving a vehicle to be owned by the victim to receive the return of the money borrowed from the victim and kept it in the factory yard he/she works, and during this process.

arrow