logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.11.11 2015노1378
절도
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) of the defendant's ground for appeal (based on the victim's wallets located on ATM), so long as the defendant's theft crime is committed against the victim, the crime of larceny is already committed against the victim. Thus, even if the defendant attempted to return the victim's wall after obtaining the phone call from the NA employees, the crime of larceny does not affect the establishment of larceny and the defendant'

2. Around August 21, 2014, around 17:07, the Defendant, at NHFFC D located in Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, and at the market price of 30,000 won of the market price offered by the Victim E on ATM, stolen it.

3. The term "the intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny" means the intention of using or disposing of another person's property in accordance with the economic usage, such as his own property, by excluding the rightful person;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3655, Oct. 13, 200). From among the items reported as lost in the day-to-day box from August 21, 2014 to August 31, 2014, there is doubt that there was a criminal defendant’s intention of unlawful acquisition in that it was not a criminal defendant, inasmuch as the defendant had no criminal intent of unlawful acquisition, among those items reported as lost in the day-to-day box box from August 21, 2014 to August 31, 2014.

However, the Defendant strongly denied the intent of unlawful acquisition by finding the main body and return it, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, namely, ① the Defendant’s phone call was made in relation to whether he/she brought the wall, and the Defendant knew that he/she would have known the victim’s phone number when he/she recognized that he/she would bring the wall, and ② the victim E was lost, immediately after having known that he/she lost the wall.

arrow