[1] Whether the perception of “the stolen property” in the crime of stolen property is sufficiently recognizable (affirmative)

[2] Whether the act of transferring stolen goods does not constitute a crime because the imported stolen goods, which are stolen goods, were newly registered domestically, constitutes original acquisition (negative)

[3] In a case where the defendant acquired an unregistered imported vehicle, which is a stolen vehicle, and completed new registration, and transferred it in consideration of the fact that the above automobile was stolen, the case affirming the decision of the court below that rejected the defendant's bona fide acquisition and recognized the crime of transferring stolen property

[1] Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Code, Article 6 of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 9449 of Feb. 6, 2009), Article 249 of the Civil Code / [3] Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Code, Article 249 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904 decided Dec. 9, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 147) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6084 decided Oct. 13, 2006

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Dong-soo

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008No2862 Decided April 16, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The perception of stolens in the crime of stolens is not required to be a conclusive perception, and it is sufficient to have dolusent perceptions to the degree of doubt that the stolens are ambiguous (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904 delivered on December 9, 2004, etc.).

According to the evidence of the first instance court's adoption maintained by the court below, the defendant acquired the imported automobile of this case which was unregistered on December 2004, and thought that the import automobile of this case, the first registration of which was completed on or around March 29, 2005, would have become stolen, but later transferred it to the non-indicted, around May 28, 2005. In light of the above legal principles, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion of bona fide acquisition and found the defendant guilty of the charge of the transfer of stolen goods of this case, and the above judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on stolen goods.

In addition, Article 6 of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 9449 of Feb. 6, 2009) provides that "the acquisition or loss of the ownership of a motor vehicle shall take effect only after the registration thereof shall take effect." However, since the purpose of the above provision is to certify the ownership of a motor vehicle to be provided for operation on the road and to ensure the safety thereof, the first registrant shall not be deemed to have had the imported motor vehicle registered as stolen, but it shall not be deemed that the first registrant would acquire the relevant imported motor vehicle temporarily or that it does not constitute an offense of transfer of stolen property. The argument in the grounds of appeal pointing out any error by the court below on a different premise is dismissed.

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

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)