beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. At the time of the instant case, the gist of the grounds for appeal was as follows: (a) at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had no intention to larceny; and
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the facts charged in this case.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for the instant appeal in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the specific grounds under the title “judgment on the Defendant’s assertion”.
B. Determination of the party deliberation 1) The intention of larceny of the relevant legal doctrine refers to the perception and intent of the other person’s theft of another’s property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8206, Apr. 14, 2005). The Criminal Act refers to the removal of possession of another person’s property from one’s possession against the latter’s possessor’s will and the transfer of another person’s possession to one’s own or a third party’s possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4546, Oct. 26, 2001). In a case where the defendant denies the intention, which is a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime composition, the criminal intent itself cannot be objectively proved, and therefore, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts related to the criminal intent in
In such a case, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial fact ought to be determined by a reasonable method of determining the link of facts based on the normal empirical rule with a thorough observation or analysis power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017). Presumption acceptance did not have a real consent of the victim.
In light of all objective circumstances at the time of the act, it refers to the case in which it is anticipated that the injured person would have naturally accepted if he had known the contents of the act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8081, Mar. 24, 2006; 2007Do6462, Jun. 11, 2009).