beta
Main Issues
The intention of unlawful acquisition in larceny
Summary of Judgment
The intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny means the intention to use or dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property, or the intention to permanently hold the economic interest of the goods. Even in cases where possession of another person is deprived of for the purpose of temporary use, it shall not be deemed to be a temporary use in cases where it is occupied for a considerable period without the intention to return it, or where it is abandoned at a place different from its original place. Thus, it shall not be deemed that there is no intention to acquire it.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 329 of the Criminal Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 81Do2394 Delivered on October 13, 1981
Applicant for Custody
Persons under guard;
upper and high-ranking persons
Applicant for Custody
Defense Counsel
Attorney Sick-soo
Judgment of the lower court
Daegu High Court Decision 84No1152,84No213 delivered on October 16, 1984
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal by the respondent and defense counsel are examined.
The expression "an intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny" means an intention to use another person's property as his own property, or an intention to use another person's property permanently, and even if the occupation of another person is violated for the purpose of temporary use, it cannot be deemed that there is no intention to acquire it as temporary use, because it does not constitute a case where it is occupied for a considerable period of time without the intention to return it, or where it is abandoned at a place different from its original one. In this case, according to the records and the reasoning of the first instance judgment maintained by the court of first instance, the applicant for protective custody was set up in the place No. 2 of the judgment and driven the vehicle at the Busan Jin-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-Appellee-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-Appellee-dong-dong-dong-dong-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)