본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.06.20 2018노4117

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.


1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is that the victim found his/her cell phone at the taxi and did not return the cell phone immediately, but did not cut off the cell phone.

2. Determination

A. On April 22, 2018, the Defendant, around 05:30 on April 2, 2018, sent the victim E to the G University located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the destination of which was located, after having taken the victim E from the front of the C clubs located in Mapo-gu Seoul, to the Defendant’s Dogal ju (hereinafter “Cgal ju”) operated by the Defendant on the road of Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Seoul, and then having taken the victim’s Dog ju (S9 mobile phone) at the market price of KRW 1 million, which the

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendant appears to have sufficiently discovered the victim’s coming from the taxi, the Defendant’s statement is inconsistent, and the victim was able to have sway by making his own cell phone, and the Defendant was unlikely to have been aware of this, and the Defendant did not take measures to return the cell phone before receiving contact from the investigative agency.

B. (i) Criminal facts in a criminal trial should be acknowledged based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the extent that there is no room for reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such convictions are to be ensured, it should be determined based on the defendant’s interest even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or unwritten face-to-faced.

On the other hand, larceny is established by infringing another's possession of property. Here, "Possession" is a pure de facto relationship that actually controls any property, and is not necessarily consistent with the possession under the Civil Act.