beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to the crime of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant tried to deduct the vehicle delivery, sale, and operation agreement (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”) prepared by borrowing money from the victim C from the perspective of tearing.
Therefore, since there was no intention to use the letter of this case by the defendant, it is not recognized as an intention of illegal acquisition by the defendant.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles, the lower court cannot be deemed limited to the case where the meaning of the "Economic Use Act" is necessarily realized in the market or is used or used for its original purpose, such as its own property, after examining the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, and the intent of unlawful acquisition, i.e., “an intention to exclude another person’s right holder and use and dispose of another person’s goods in accordance with the economic usage, such as its own property.” However, even if the Defendant intended to deduct the statement of this case from the intent of the change in order to continue to operate the vehicle, which is a security, in preparation for the case where the period of payment is due without repayment of the obligation to pay the loan, even if the Defendant failed to pay the loan, it can be deemed that the victim C, the owner of each of the instant documents of this case, was the intent of the Defendant to arbitrarily dispose of the value of each of the documents of this case
The decision was determined.
The intent of unlawful acquisition refers to the intent to use and dispose of another person's goods as his own goods by removing the right holder, and it does not require the intention to permanently hold the economic interest of the goods (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012). Based on these legal principles, the lower court's judgment is legitimate.