[1] The degree of awareness of stolen property in the crime of acquiring stolen property and the criteria for its recognition

[2] Whether the crime of acquiring stolen property constitutes a crime of acquiring stolen property in a case where a person has a doubt that is not a stolen property only after receiving the property (negative)

[3] Whether the act of keeping stolen property in custody without knowledge of its nature constitutes a crime of keeping stolen property even after being aware of its fact (negative with qualification)

[4] The point of time to determine whether an intentional act was committed in the crime of acquiring stolen goods by a pawned business operator

[5] The case holding that the act of pawning the ownership is not a crime of acquiring stolen property, and the act of receiving a memorandum of ownership is not a crime of acquiring stolen property, and the act of pawning the security of the loan claims by the pawning business operator is not an act of taking the security of the loan claims, and it is not a crime of storing stolen property, if the pawning business operator has the authority to occupy the security of the loan claims.

[1] Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Code / [3] Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Code / [4] Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Code / [5] Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do3590 delivered on September 5, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904 Delivered on December 9, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 147) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 71Do468 Delivered on April 20, 1971 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 85Do2472 Delivered on January 21, 1986 (Gong1986, 406)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2002No5461 Delivered on August 26, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the acquisition of stolen property

A. The perception of stolen property in the crime of stolens is not required to be a conclusive perception, and it is sufficient to have dolusent perception to the extent of gathering a doubt that it is a stolen, and the issue of whether the stolen is aware of the fact is a stolen shall be recognized by taking into account the identity of the stolen owner, the nature of the stolen property, the transaction cost and other circumstances (see Supreme Court Decisions 99Do3590, Sept. 5, 200; 2004Do5904, Dec. 9, 2004, etc.). In light of the above legal principles and records, it is difficult to view that the court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, it is difficult to view that the court below knew that the bail was a stolen by the victim at the time of pawning the stolen property as stated in the list of crimes in the court of first instance, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

B. Since the crime of acquiring stolen property is established with the knowledge of the fact that the stolen was an stolen property at the time of acquisition, the act of receiving stolen property cannot be deemed to constitute the crime of acquiring stolen property on the ground that the defendant had a doubt about whether the stolen property was not the stolen property only after receiving the property (see Supreme Court Decision 71Do468, Apr. 20, 1971). If the defendant kept stolen property without knowledge of the fact that the stolen property is the stolen property but has become aware of the fact that it is the stolen property thereafter, the act of keeping the stolen property continuously constitutes the crime of storing stolen property even if it is kept continuously, but even if it is authorized to possess it, it cannot be deemed that the crime of keeping stolen property constitutes the crime of keeping stolen property even if it is kept continuously (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do2472, Jan. 21, 1986).

The court below determined whether an act of pawning the pawned article constitutes an act of acquiring de facto rights to dispose of the pawned article, which constitutes an act of acquiring stolen property in the crime of acquiring stolen property. If there is no evidence that the defendant, as in this case, was aware of the fact that the delivery of stolen article was made at the time when the pawned article was pawned, the act of receiving a withdrawal of ownership constitutes an act of acquiring stolen property. In addition, according to the records, the defendant's intent to return bail at any time when he repaid the loan to the non-indicted, and the non-indicted also asked the defendant to not dispose of the bail which was entrusted to him as security while promising to repay the loan, and the defendant's act of acquiring the stolen article constitutes an act of acquiring the pawned article as security, and there is no room to reverse the judgment of the court below that the defendant's act of receiving the withdrawal of ownership from the non-indicted operator constitutes an act of acquiring the pawned article as security more than an act of acquiring the ownership of the non-indicted owner, and it is not clear that the defendant's act of acquiring the pawned article as security.

2. As to the good offices

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance for the reason that there is no proof as to the defendant's act of mediating stolen goods, and there is no violation of law of mistake

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)