2018Do486 A. Special larceny

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

[Recognized Crime Name: Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint)

【Intrusiond with a structure】

C.

Defendant

Attorney D, R, S, U, V, W, X

Busan District Court Decision 2017No2787 Decided December 14, 2017

April 26, 2018

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the charge of special larceny among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, and the Defendant’s success in the first instance trial

In collaboration with the same defendant A (hereinafter referred to as "A") and enter the office of the victim;

에 있던 피해자 소유의 귀갑안경, 듀퐁라이터, 삼성노트북, 차량 열쇠, 법인 명의 통장

Documents file, etc. and the head of Tong in the name of G, a certified copy of resident registration, and a person possessed by the victim

Certificate of identification, copy of H’s driver’s license, copy of resident registration certificate, I’s certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration

A Copy of the certificate, copy of the passbook (hereinafter referred to as "documents in the name of family members of A") etc.

And it was stolen.

The court below held that the victim received the documents of this case from A and received them.

The judgment of the court of first instance which judged that documents were owned by the victim and found guilty of the above facts charged

the defendant's appeal was maintained and dismissed.

2. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the theft of the instant documents as follows.

For this reason, we cannot accept it.

(a) Theft under the Criminal Act means the possessor’s intent to possess the object owned by any person other than himself/herself;

against this State’s exclusion from possession and transfer to one’s or a third party’s possession (Supreme Court)

See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2963 Decided September 28, 2006, etc.

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

(1) On June 2015, A, a doctor, became aware of the victim’s establishment relationship with the hospital, and from the victim.

delivery of documents for change of executive officers, such as N's representative director that he/she operates

of this case in the name of his wife G, head H, and father I upon request, shall be delivered to the victim

had been.

(2) On August 19, 2015, the victim made use of the instant documents to G the representative director of N on August 19, 2015

The registration of changing inside directors into H, G, and auditor as one has been completed.

(3) The defendant who had met the victim upon the victim's request by the introduction of A is a certificate of the personal seal impression of the victim.

A copy of resident registration certificate, certificate of tax payment, etc. were issued to the victim.

(4) The Defendant and A receive loans by using the documents that they delivered to them.

The documents of this case shall be admitted to the victim's office as stated in the facts charged, with suspicion that they may be charged.

The defendant's documents have been held by him.

(5) The documents of this case from the investigative agency to the court are deemed to have been prepared by the victim.

It stated to the effect that the applicant wishes to return documents to the nominal person.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the instant documents were the victim.

It is issued for a certain purpose of registration as an officer or employee of the corporation operating by the corporation.

Certificates, resident registration copies, etc. shall be the identity of the offender and the conduct of the transaction in the transaction;

Since it has a very important function in the transaction as a material to confirm that it is by private;

Unless there are special circumstances, after being used for the original purpose, it shall be returned to the name of the holder.

It is correct to regard the victim as being kept in custody for the nominal owner. Moreover, the victim himself/herself is the victim.

The document of this case is temporarily kept on behalf of the nominal owner and is returned to the nominal owner.

Further, the name at the time of issuance of the instant document is written to the effect that the document was intended.

have the ultimate authority to dispose of the documents of this case to the victim.

It seems that it is difficult to readily conclude it.

Therefore, the lower court, taking into account the above circumstances, us at the time of delivery of the instant documents.

More closely about the genuine intentions of the persons, the purpose of delivery, the details of keeping documents by the victims, etc.

To examine who the owner of the instant document was the owner of the instant document. Nevertheless,

The documents of this case were delivered to the victim for the purpose of listing the officer or employee of the company

The judgment of the court below that held that the victim was owned by another person, which is a constituent element of larceny.

Having an effect on the conclusion of the judgment by either misapprehending the legal doctrine or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

The grounds of appeal assigning this error are with merit.

3. Of the facts charged of the instant special larceny, the part regarding the larceny of the instant documents

As such, there are reasons for reversal, and as long as the above part is reversed, the money in the relationship of a single crime.

The part which stolen goods should also be reversed, and the remaining guilty part and the Criminal Code are also reversed.

Inasmuch as a single sentence was rendered on the ground that the former part of Article 37 is concurrent crimes, the lower court ultimately rendered a judgment.

The judgment shall be reversed in whole.

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded.

In other words, the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It shall be remanded to the assent of all participating Justices.

It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Decision 200

Justices Kim Gin-young

Chief Justice Kim Jong-il

Justices Cho Jae-chul