Where another person's article is used without permission from an occupant, the criteria for determining whether the intention to acquire it is illegal.

If, without the consent of the possessor of an object of another person, the use of the object itself has been consumed to the extent of substantial economic value, or has dumped it in another place other than its original place after the use or has occupied it for a long time without returning it, the intention of unlawful acquisition may be recognized by deeming that there is an intention of infringing on the ownership or principal right. However, if the use is insignificant and returned immediately after the use, it cannot be said that there is no intention of infringing on the ownership or principal right, and if the consumption of the value due to the use is minor, and it is returned immediately after the use.

Article 329 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Chuncheon District Court Decision 87No186 delivered on July 9, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

When an object of another person is used without permission from the possessor of the object without permission, if it is consumed to the extent that the economic value of the object itself is considerably high, or if it is dumped in another place other than its original place after its use or it is in possession of the long time without return, the intention of unlawful acquisition may be recognized by deeming that the owner has the intention of infringing on the ownership or the principal right. However, if the use is not so minor and it is the same as the return immediately after its use, it cannot be said that there is an intention of infringing on the ownership or principal right, and it is reasonable to deem that the intention of unlawful acquisition is not acceptable.

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's seal and seal imprint are removed from his book to the joint and several sureties of the loan certificate, and the fact that the defendant was placed in the book immediately after the loan certificate was affixed, and it cannot be recognized that there was an intention to obtain illegal acquisition of the above seal, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the intention to obtain illegal acquisition in the so-called theft of use, or violating the rules of evidence, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

The precedents are all based on the premise that the intention of infringement on ownership and other principal rights is recognized, and thus, it is not appropriate in this case.

All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)