If the husband who is living separately takes advantage of the key in which the seal kept by his husband is put in even though being kept, the part of larceny.

If the seal actually was in the custody of the husband who was living separately in a separate house, even though the wife was in possession of the key of the body even though he had been in the custody of the body, the seal shall be deemed to be under the custody of the husband, not under the sole custody of the wife. Thus, as long as the wife who was in the joint custodian took the above seal with the intention of unlawful acquisition without the consent of the husband who was in the other custodian, it shall be deemed that larceny constitutes a crime of larceny.

Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 197 of the Civil Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Park Tae-tae

Chuncheon District Court Decision 82No509 delivered on November 4, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the evidence of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, as at the time of the trial, the defendants conspired with the non-indicted 2, who was the wife of the victim non-indicted 1, stolen the above victim's seal and forged the same seal, and the defendant 1, using the above forged seal, forged one letter of promise to sell and sell real estate in the victim's name and one proxy letter of application for provisional registration, submitted it to the registry official, accompanied by a provisional registration application, and used it to have the registry official enter the false provisional registration in the register as the original copy of the authentic deed, and used it to keep it to the registry office. In light of the evidence preparation process of the court of first instance which was conducted in the above fact-finding, it is justified in the measures that did not accept the statement of non-indicted 2 or non-indicted 1 in the statement of the lawsuit, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or

In particular, the author argues that it cannot be a theft because Nonindicted 2, who was the wife of the victim, was in custody. Accordingly, according to the prosecutor's statement of the most effective statement of statement and the testimony of the first instance court witness Kim Young-hee, the above Nonindicted 2 is keeping the key of the victim's seal, and it is recognized that the victim and Nonindicted 2, who was the victim, were in custody of the victim's house. However, according to the trial evidence of the first instance court, the above victim and Nonindicted 2 were in custody of the victim's house, even though they were in custody of the victim's residence, even though they were in possession of the key of the seat, they should be considered to have been jointly kept with the victim, not under the sole custody of Nonindicted 2, but under the joint custody of the victim.

Thus, as long as Nonindicted 2, who is a joint custodian, took the above seal with the intent of unlawful acquisition without obtaining the consent of the above victim, he shall be deemed to constitute larceny. Therefore, the first instance court's decision that applied Nonindicted 2's act of the Defendants who conspired to commit the crime of larceny is just and there is no error of law such as legal misunderstanding.

Ultimately, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)