Whether money received by selling stolen goods is stolen

Since stolen property in the crime of acquiring stolen property refers to the stolen itself acquired by the crime of property, the sale price of stolen property is not recognized as stolen property.

Article 362 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Do2296 delivered on February 22, 1972 (Supreme Court Decision 10040 delivered on June 22, 197, Supreme Court Decision 200Do34 delivered on June 20, 200)

Defendant 1 and five others

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul District Court (69Da8331)

Each appeal filed by the prosecutor against Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be dismissed.

Part on Defendant 1 and Defendant 5 in the original judgment shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 and 5 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for each year.

From among detention days before the sentence of the lower judgment, 130 days each shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence as to Defendant 1 and Defendant 5.

1. The Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal against the Defendant 1, 5, and 6 is that the lower court’s sentencing against the said Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. The gist of the grounds for appeal against the prosecutor against the defendants 2, 3, and 4 is difficult to view the proceeds from sale of stolen goods as objects identical to the stolen goods, and even if the defendant received such money, it is difficult to view that he acquired stolen goods by category and acquisition of stolen goods, and thus, it should be recognized that the proceeds from sale of stolen goods was stolen. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of law by failing to do so.

3. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 1's defense counsel is as follows: (1) In full view of the entry of the seizure protocol of handling affairs by the judicial police officer, the entry of the suspect interrogation protocol as to the defendant 1, 5, and 6 in the process of handling affairs by the prosecutor and the judicial police officer; and the statement statement as to the non-indicted witness in the process of preparing the prosecutor's and the prosecutor's protocol as to the above defendant's statement in the court of the court below, it is clear that the defendant 1 acquired this case's goods are not military supplies but used for the general purpose, because they are used for the disposal of defective coal. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the facts with the intention of applying the law, and there was an error in the misapprehension of the Act on Special Measures for the Crimes of Military Supplies, etc. (2) since the court below's sentencing against the defendant is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances of the original crime.

4. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 5's defense counsel is (1) as this case's goods are discontinued or shot, and it is unlawful to apply the law despite that it is not a military supplies under the Act on Special Measures for the Crimes of Military Supplies, etc. (2) Even though the defendant legally acquired this case's goods and was aware that he purchased stolen goods from the waste disposal site, the court below acknowledged that the defendant committed a violation of the Act on Special Measures for Military Supplies because he erred in the preparation of evidence, and (3) the sentencing against the defendant is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances of this case's crime.

1. Therefore, it is sufficient to recognize that the court below's sentencing against the defendant 6 was appropriate in light of the health stand, and all the conditions serving as the basis for the sentencing duly examined by the court below, based on the records, as to the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing against the defendant 6, and otherwise deal with the defendant 1.

There is no doubt that the materials should have been found. Therefore, it is unreasonable to discuss.

2. Regarding the prosecutor's assertion that the crime of acquiring stolen property was not applied to the defendants 2, 3, and 4 of this case, since the stolen property of the crime of acquiring stolen property refers to the stolen property itself acquired by the crime of property, it shall not be recognized that the sale price of stolen property changed the form of property, i.e., the sale price of stolen property is a stolen property. Thus, the court below's decision that acquitted the above defendants, etc. on the ground that the crime of acquiring stolen property was not a stolen property

Therefore, each appeal against Defendant 2, 3, 6 and Defendant 4 by the prosecutor is without merit, and thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. As to the assertion that the defendant 1's defense counsel and the defendant 5's defense counsel erred in mistake of facts and legal application, it is sufficient to establish that the defendant 1, like the plaintiff 1, knew that the defendant 1 had purchased the above ball cartridges with the knowledge of the fact that the defendant 1 was a military supplies, such as the plaintiff 1,20,00, after considering the various evidences that the court below lawfully investigated and adopted, and the part of the statements corresponding to the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant 1 and the defendant 5's defendant 5's defendant 1 knew that the defendant 1 was a military supplies, the defendant 1,20,000, as the plaintiff 1 knew that the above ball cartridges was a military supplies, and there is no other evidence to believe that the court below erred in finding that the facts were a military supplies, and therefore, it is legitimate to apply the Act on Special Measures for the Crimes against Military Supplies to the defendant 1 and the defendant 5.

In light of the prosecutor's assertion of sentencing over the defendant 1 and the defendant 5's assertion of sentencing over the defendant, etc. and the records, it is sufficient to recognize that the court below's sentencing against the above defendant, etc. was all impossible, and there is no reason to discuss the above defendant, etc., and the prosecutor's above argument is groundless.

Therefore, since each appeal by the above defendant, etc. is reasonable, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision is rendered after pleading.

The criminal facts recognized by this Court against the above defendant and their evidence relations are identical to the time of the original trial, which are added to each part of the statements corresponding to the facts at the time of the original trial by the above defendant, etc. in the court of original trial. Therefore, this is cited by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

As the court below's decision falls under Articles 3 (1) and 362 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Crimes against Military Supplies, etc., the court below's decision-making shall be deemed to fall under Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Crimes against Military Supplies, etc. and Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the above defendants, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year within the prescribed term of punishment

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

Judges Noh Jin-be (Presiding Judge)