beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On March 31, 2017, the Defendant stated in the facts charged that “C,” located in Yangsan City B, would be the Plaintiff’s possession of KRW 17,400,00 of the market value of D owned in the instant teahouse, and that “17,000,000,000,000,000 won of the market value of D owned in the instant place,” and that the Defendant’s vinyl removal work would bring about KRW 17,00 in lieu of working expenses.”
E, therefore, the 17th tin above (hereinafter referred to as “instant stone”) was owned by the Defendant, leading the misunderstanding that he/she owns one ton of the cargo vehicles that he/she drives.
Accordingly, the defendant stolen D's property by using E.
2. Determination
A. The Criminal Act refers to the removal of possession of a person other than himself/herself from possession against the will of the possessor and the removal of possession to his/her or a third party (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4546, Oct. 26, 2001). B. In this case, in order to ask the defendant to commit the crime of larceny, D should have owned and possessed the land of this case.
Accordingly, according to the evidence adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts and circumstances are recognized:
1. The land related to the stone of this case shall be marked on the F forest land in Yangsan-si (the land shall be marked on the old address for convenience).
hereinafter the same shall apply);
G Forest, H Jeon, I, J Forest, and K Forest. D, together with M in around 2005, purchased F forest land 5,691m2 falling under each of the above lands prior to subdivision, and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and sold some of them to N,O, etc. in installments as above.
② D around 2008, around 2008, left the instant stone in part of each of the above lands, but the location at which D was first located is not accurately identified.
③ In around 2012, the Defendant used the above land as a parking lot for a middle-class parking lot with permission from N, a part of the owner of each of the above land. However, the Defendant was a vinyl house in part of the land, and the Defendant intended to raise some of the stone stone in this case.