In the absence of marriage, the application of the precedent of relatives shall be made in the case of theft of possession by a marriage at the house.

If the civilization, which is the damaged goods, purchased the fault of the defendant, it shall be the unique property of the person who has the right to possess and manage it as the property of the person, and even if the person did not have the house at the time of the crime, it shall be within the control of the person, so long as it was caused by the house wall of the person, it shall be within the limit of the control of the person. Therefore, it shall not be deemed that it belongs to the possession of the person and is under the joint possession of the couple, and it shall be applied to the theft.

Article 344 of the Criminal Act; Article 327(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu High Court Decision 83No1368 delivered on December 27, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the court below's decision that this case's privateization belongs to the Dong purchased by the non-indicted 1 and it is justified to recognize that it belongs to his possession, and since there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any error of incomplete deliberation as to the facts charged by the non-indicted 1 as to the preparation of evidences, it cannot be employed merely because it is erroneous for the court below's exclusive authority over the preparation of evidences. Thus, if this case's privateization, which is the damage caused by the non-indicted 2, the defendant's fault, purchased by the non-indicted 1, the defendant's fault, has the right to possess and manage it, and even if the Dong did not have the house at the time of the crime, it is within the scope of control over the Dong's house, so the thiee of this case's possession belongs to the non-indicted 1, who is the victim's relative with the defendant, and therefore, the court below's dismissal of the defendant's complaint against the non-indicted 1 as to the above non-indicted 1's co-indicted 1's common possession.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)