beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) is that the Defendant has kept the E New F&W E (NEW EF), which is owned by the pro-friendly netF (hereinafter “the deceased”), at a safe place until inheritance issues are adjusted with the intent to manage or preserve inherited property, and there was no intent to hold the economic benefits of motor vehicles.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of relevant legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) based on the legal principles stated in the Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8081 Decided March 24, 2006, based on the Defendant’s assertion as to the grounds for appeal of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant was found to have taken the instant vehicle possessed by the victim against the victim’s will after the death of the deceased, since it was recognized that the Defendant was in dispute between the victim D and the inheritance, the Defendant had the intent to illegally obtain the Defendant; and (b) based on the circumstance that the Defendant knew the victim at the time of his death, the Defendant did not interfere with the above recognition.
B. Prior to the recognition by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances are revealed by these evidence, namely, ① the victim who is the deceased’s spouse as the inheritor, and H/I, his parent, and the articles in co-ownership with others also belong to the property of another person, which is the object of larceny (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2432, Nov. 25, 1994). ② The victim occupied and used the instant motor vehicle even after the deceased died, and thus, even if the Defendant transferred the instant motor vehicle upon delegation from his/her father, the victim’s property was stolen, and ③ the Defendant was the victim.