The case holding that larceny began

The commencement time of larceny is when the act of infringing another person's de facto control over property has started, and it is reasonable to view that the accomplice started the larceny if he finds minccot contained in the victim's motor vehicle and wishes to steal it, and the accomplice was aware of the victim's right right ahead of the above difference between the two sides of the vehicle and the two sides of the vehicle.

Articles 329 and 342 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Tae-hee, Justice Noh Jeong-hee

Seoul High Court Decision 86No2597 delivered on September 25, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The thirty days, from among those pending trial after the appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence.

The defendant and defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

In full view of the evidence at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance applied mutatis mutandis by the court below, it cannot be found that the facts constituting the crime in the judgment are sufficiently recognized and that the court below erred by mismisunderstanding the facts against the rules

In addition, the starting time of larceny begins when the act of infringing another person's de facto control over property is committed, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant discovered minccot which is contained in the victim's automobile and thought to steal it, and that the defendant started the commission of larceny in this case where the defendant was discovered from the next side of the above vehicle and the defendant was discovered from the front of the above right of the vehicle, and that the above act was committed against the victim. Therefore, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the starting of the commission of larceny in the judgment of the court below against the defendant as a special attempted larceny.

In addition, as in the case of this case, the judgment which sentenced a sentence of less than 10 years of imprisonment cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing under the Criminal Procedure Act, and since the criminal defendant case against a juvenile is not to be forwarded to the Juvenile Department, it is not necessary to forward the criminal defendant case to the Juvenile Department

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)