beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from July 9, 2012, operated a real estate brokerage business with the victim C as a partnership business. The victim is a representative licensed real estate agent, and the Defendant is operating a mutual real estate brokerage business with the name of “E” in Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu as a brokerage assistant, while the mutual trust between the two parties comes to collapse, and the victim notified the Defendant of the termination of the partnership business relationship on February 17, 2014, and reported the suspension of business for the said business.
However, the defendant and the victim did not follow the liquidation procedure for distributing the operating assets between the parties.
At around 12:30 between February 28, 2014 and March 3, 2014, the Defendant had two files containing the unclaimed real estate contract with the victim who opened the above E entrance and opened the door at the place where the equipment is stored and stored.
Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.
2. The defendant and his defense counsel unilaterally withdrawn from E by C, and C brought about the email in E. Since C had concealed the file of a real estate contract, it asserts that C had no evidence to prove that there was no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition by visiting the police station directly upon request by the police, and voluntarily submitting it to the police station upon request of the police, for the purpose of securing the basis for claiming the right following the liquidation of the business relationship, there was no evidence to prove that C had concealed the file of a real estate contract.
The intention of illegal acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention of excluding the right holder of another person's property and to use and dispose of it in accordance with the economic usage, such as his/her own property. Thus, even though it is not necessary to permanently hold the economic interest of the property, the mere infringement of possession cannot be recognized only, and the ownership or equivalent value of the property is at least the intention to acquire it, regardless of its intention to acquire it.