logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2014.12.05 2014노560
절도등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the defendant's grounds of appeal (thief in the judgment of the court below) (thief in the judgment of the court below) visited the victim and I on the secondhand shop operated by the victim in order to recover his claim against I, who is the husband of the victim at the time of the case, but the victim was able to repay his obligation to the next week. Accordingly, the defendant obtained the consent of the victim about the F having the victim as the object of securing the above claim (hereinafter "this case"). Even if there was no consent of the victim, it would result in the mistake that the defendant obtained the consent, and thus, even if there was no consent of the victim, it would result in the omission of the mistake that the defendant obtained the consent, and thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty

2. Determination

A. Under the relevant legal doctrine, a theft refers to the removal of possession of another person’s possession against the will of the possessor, and the removal of another person’s possession from his/her or a third person’s possession. The intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intent to use and dispose of another person’s property in accordance with the economic usage, such as his/her own property, by excluding the right holder. The mere infringement of possession alone cannot constitute larceny, but does not require the intent to hold the economic interest of the property permanently. It is sufficient to obtain the property, i.e., the intent of infringing on the ownership or the equivalent right, or the intent of acquiring the property, regardless of whether it is intended to acquire the value of the property.

In addition, even though it is for the purpose of securing bonds, larceny is established by excluding possession against the will of the possessor, unless it is recognized that there is an explicit or implied consent of the possessor with respect to the transfer of possession at the time of possession.

arrow