If a household check delivered as security for a claim has been kept with the knowledge of the fact that it is a stolen property, the nature of the crime of keeping stolen property.

Where he/she becomes aware of the fact that a stolen was a stolen at the time of the initial storage of the stolen, in principle, again conceals or continues to keep the stolen after he/she became aware of the fact that it was the stolen, even if he/she continues to keep the stolen even after he/she became aware of the fact, it constitutes the crime of keeping the stolen, it is not the crime of keeping the stolen even if he/she continues to keep it.

Article 362 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Suwon District Court of the first instance (85 Godan93, decided 85 Godan93, decided)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

75 days from the detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

The charge of keeping stolen of the facts charged in the instant case is acquitted.

When considering the circumstances of this case, the main point of the defendant's reason for appeal is that the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable because the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

On March 25, 1985, the court below ex officio recognized six copies of the family check that the defendant stolen from Non-Indicted 1 as a collateral around 14:00 on March 25, 1985, and recognized the changed facts of the charge by the evidence in its holding that the above check was kept in custody even though it was known that it was a stolen on the 28th of the same month.

However, since it was known that the stolen was a stolen at the time of the initial storage, in principle, if the stolen was aware of the fact that it was a stolen, and thereafter, the act of hiding or continuing to keep it again after becoming aware of the fact that it constitutes the crime of safekeeping stolen property, but even after being aware of the fact, if it was authorized to possess it even after being aware of the fact, it does not constitute the crime of safekeeping stolen property. In this case, the defendant argued that he borrowed 100,000 won to the above non-indicted 1 and received the check as a collateral (the defendant asserted that the above check was delivered to the above non-indicted 1, and the prosecutor accepted it as it is, and the prosecutor accepted it as it seems to have brought a public prosecution). Thus, the continuous custody after the fact that the above check was known, after the fact that it did not constitute the crime of safekeeping stolen property because it did not constitute the crime of safekeeping stolen property by the authority to possess it, the judgment below which convicted the above facts charged as above shall be reversed by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of storing stolen property, and it shall be reversed as follows.

At around 16:00 on April 16, 1985, the Defendant, even though he knew that the Defendant was a stolen check of KRW 025290,90, the Bank's uniform branch number of KRW 100,000,000, which was operated by Non-Indicted 2, the Defendant, even though he was aware that the Defendant was a stolen check of KRW 100,000, the Bank's uniform branch number of KRW 025290,000, the Bank's uniform branch number of KRW 100,000, was stolen by Non-Indicted 1, the Defendant attempted to believe that the Defendant would pay the above 35,00,000, market price of the clothing owned by Non-Indicted 1 to the above victim, and to take the above clothing and its own money through deception, the Defendant was aware of the above victim's check and did not reach an attempted check.

1. A statement that conforms to the facts set forth in the trial of the accused and the original trial court's decision;

1. Statement made to the accused prepared by the public prosecutor, which is consistent with the facts indicated in the first and second suspect examination protocol;

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 2 (1) and Nonindicted 3 and 4 of the preparation of a judicial police assistant, which is consistent with the facts in the judgment

Articles 352, 347(1) (Selection of Imprisonment), and 57 of the Criminal Act

(not guilty Part)

As seen above, the summary of the charge of the storage of stolen goods among the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a case which does not constitute a crime as stated in the above reasons for reversal and thus, the acquittal is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the same reasons above.

Judges Park Tae-young (Presiding Judge)