[1] Requirements for the application of the crime of unlawful use of motor vehicles, etc. under Article 331-2 of the Criminal Code, and intent of unlawful acquisition in larceny

[2] The case holding that larceny, which is not a crime of unlawful use of motor vehicles, is established in the event that a person takes a stoves on the stoves without the owner's consent and leaves it another place

[1] The crime of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, etc. under Article 331-2 of the Criminal Act applies to a case where the means of transportation, such as another person's motor vehicle, are used temporarily without the intention of unlawful acquisition, and where it is recognized as an intention of unlawful acquisition, it can only be punished as a crime of larceny. The intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention of use and disposal of another person's goods as his own property, and it is not necessary to permanently hold the economic benefits of the goods. Even if the person has been deprived of another person's possession for the purpose of temporary use, it cannot be viewed as a case where the person occupies for a considerable period of time without the intention of return or abandons it to a place different from its original place. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a case of temporary use.

[2] The case holding that theft, not a crime of unlawful use of motor vehicles, may be established in the event that a person takes a otobba without the consent of the owner and leaves another place

[1] Articles 329 and 331-2 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 329 and 331-2 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Do392 delivered on December 26, 1984 (Gong1985, 300) Supreme Court Decision 88Do917 delivered on September 13, 198 (Gong1988, 1292)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Cho Yong-ok

Seoul High Court Decision 2002No847 delivered on June 18, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. 70 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

1. The crime of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, etc. under Article 331-2 of the Criminal Act applies to a case where the means of transportation, such as another person's motor vehicle, are used temporarily without the intention of unlawful acquisition, and thus, can only be punished for larceny if it is recognized as an intention of unlawful acquisition. The intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention of use and disposal of another person's goods as his own property, and it is not necessary to permanently hold the economic interest of the goods. It is not necessary that the act of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, etc. under Article 331-2 of the Criminal Act means a case where the other person occupies for a considerable period of time without the intention of return or abandons it to a place different from its original place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do392, Dec. 26, 1984; 8Do917, Sept. 13, 198).

According to the records and the reasoning of the first instance court cited by the judgment of the court below, since the defendant 7, Jung-gu, Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon, where the defendant was working to stop and escape from the crime of robbery, injury, etc., was loaded in front of the coast apartment commercial apartment building Chinese house located in Jung-gu, Incheon, and then laid off the bus after going through Gwangju. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below did not intend to obtain the above Obba from the defendant as illegal use of the vehicle, etc. under Article 331-2 of the Criminal Act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to larceny, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

2. In this case where the defendant was sentenced to a punishment of less than 10 years of imprisonment, the reason that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)