beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On February 18, 2016, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) around 12:13, the Defendant: (b) stolen the Defendant, through F, carrying the victim D with the victim D, who was in the business with C2 at the Esing practice room and the first floor convenience store located in the business with the victim, and with three-lanes (c) who were in the possession and management of the Defendant and possessed jointly with the victim; (b) as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, the amount of KRW 4,00,000, total market price of KRW 25,798,000, and the convenience store (hereinafter “goods in this case”).
2. Determination
A. The Defendant and the defense counsel did not have any business with D, and all of the instant goods were aware of the Defendant’s ownership because they were installed and purchased in the money of the Defendant, and ② they were taken out because the owner of the instant goods was under the circumstances that the owner of the instant goods should issue a building by filing a scambling lawsuit, and thus, there was no intention of illegal acquisition, and ③ they were in partnership with D.
Even if one person withdraws from the partnership relationship, the remaining property belongs to the partnership member's joint ownership. Since D brought a lawsuit to return money in full including the termination of the partnership relationship, convenience stores and singing rooms and facilities were owned independently by the defendant, and only the money settlement obligation for D remains. Thus, the defendant's act does not constitute larceny.
The argument is asserted.
(b) Where one member expresses his/her intention to withdraw in the partnership relationship of two persons, the partnership relationship shall be terminated in terms of the nature thereof, but it shall not be dissolved unless there are special circumstances, and therefore, the partnership's property which belongs to the partnership of the union members but belongs to the partnership of the union members shall remain between the person who left the partnership and the person who left the partnership because it belongs to the sole ownership of the remaining union members who do not withdraw.
It is (Supreme Court Decision 2002. 2002.).