Whether a resident registration certificate is the object of the crime of embezzlement of stolen property or not.

A resident registration certificate is an object of property value, and it is an object of the crime of embezzlement.

Article 360 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court (84 High Court Decision 259)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

One hundred fifteen days out of the detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

A seized resident registration certificate (No. 3) shall be discarded, and the seized kitchen knife (No. 1) and one salt acid (No. 2) shall be returned to the victim.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel No. 1 is that the resident registration certificate in the judgment as to the facts of the first offense cannot be deemed as having property value, and thus, it cannot be the object of the crime of embezzlement of stolen property. Thus, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the above resident registration certificate constitutes the object of the crime of embezzlement of stolen property. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of embezzlement of stolen property, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The first point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant was that the court below punished the defendant on the ground that the defendant was in a state of mental and physical disorder due to taking out large amounts of 3, 4, and 5 sexual stability at the time of the original judgment, even though the defendant was in a state of mental and physical disorder at the time of the crime. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mental and physical disorder, and the second point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel

Therefore, in full view of the evidence duly admitted by the court below as to each of the first grounds for appeal, the court below recognized the defendant's resident registration certificate acquisition facts and found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant's resident registration certificate was the object of the crime of embezzlement of stolen property, and determined that the defendant was not in a mental and physical state at the time of the crime as prescribed by the decision of the court below, and the above grounds for appeal shall not be accepted on the ground that there were errors by mistake of facts or by misapprehending legal principles

Next, prior to determining the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing by the defendant and his defense counsel, it is clear that the defendant was the first day of April 4, 1965, and the majority has been attained after the appeal. As such, the judgment of the court below which sentenced the defendant to an unjust sentence on the premise that the defendant is a juvenile under the Juvenile Act cannot be maintained, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is not exempt from reversal in this respect.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are again decided as follows.

The summary of the criminal facts and evidence of the defendant recognized as a party member is the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and this is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that the so-called "public document alteration" of Article 360 (1), Article 225 of the Criminal Act provides that the second term of the ruling shall be revised; Article 229 and Article 225 of the same Act provides that the second term of the ruling shall be "Article 329 of the same Act"; Article 329 of the same Act provides that the second term of the ruling shall be "the so-called "Article 3 (2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that the second term of the ruling shall be "the second term of the ruling of the court below"; Article 342 and Article 330 of the same Act provides that "the second term of the ruling of the court below shall be "the punishment of misappropriation" and Article 37 (1) 2 of the same Act provides that the defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor among the prescribed types of punishment of imprisonment with prison labor and Article 15 of the same Act provides that "the most severe punishment of imprisonment."

Although the defendant asserts that he was in a state of mental or physical disability or mental disability by taking notice 15 notice at the time of committing the crime as set forth in Articles 3 through 5 above, the above argument shall not be accepted.

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

Judges Goh Jin (Presiding Judge)