beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The defendant of misunderstanding of facts was seeing the side from the way A, and was in the vicinity, and it does not seem to have been lost while A steals stolen the bank of this case.
Simple acts with the instant bags located on the paths of misunderstanding legal principles constitute embezzlement of stolen objects, not embezzlement.
Judgment
The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the original judgment, and the lower court rejected this in part below’s summary of evidence.
According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below's finding of facts and determination are justified, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
In the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of larceny, a theft refers to the removal of the property possessed by another person against the will of the possessor, and the removal of the property from one's own or a third person's possession. Whether a certain property is under the possession of another person shall be determined in consideration of the intention of control as a subjective element in addition to the scope of management as an objective element or the possibility of factual management, and ultimately, the form of the property in question and other specific circumstances shall be determined from a normative perspective in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3252, Jul. 10, 2008). It does not fall under a temporary deprivation of possession, which means a thing that does not go against the intention of the possessor, and is not yet deemed to have been discharged from another person's possession.
In full view of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the bank of this case is merely set up in the way of the victim's work, and thus is still under the control of the victim under social norms. Thus, the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.
(1)