Whether the defendant's money and valuables belonging to the principal owner located in the photographer's photographor's photographor's photographor's possession at around 7.15 19:30 constitutes the so-called "satisfic theft" at night.

The so-called theft that the defendant's money and valuables belonging to the main owner located in the photographer's photographer at around 7.15 19:30 can not be viewed as larceny.

Defendant

(National) Attorney Park Jong-soo

Busan District Court Decision 75No3689 delivered on January 21, 1976

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The court below, on July 15 of the same year, calculated the 4 facts indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance as night-time larceny. However, according to the above facts, at around 19:30 of the alternative 13-4 of the Jinju-si, the defendant, at that time, was an employee, and owned by the non-indicted 2,50 won in cash equivalent to 20,000 won at the market price of 1st unit (No. 2 of the No. 1) of the "Apantex" photographic machine, which is located in the non-indicted 1,500 won, among the crimes charged by the prosecutor. The facts of the crime of this 4 are not considered to constitute the crime of larceny during the name of the crime charged by the prosecutor. Nevertheless, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on night-time intrusion larceny or by misapprehending the legal principles on the rate of omission in residence, or by handling affairs of the error in the (referring to the statement as mentioned above) of the non-indicted 2.

Therefore, this appeal is justified, and therefore, it is reversed the judgment of the court below pursuant to Article 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the case is remanded to the Busan District Court Panel Division which is the court below. The opinions of the judges involved are consistent with this judgment.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)