Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
The defendant was an employee of Lotus and pushed a cart carrying three wooden boxes past the checkout area toward the exit. An electric oven belonging to the injured party had been concealed inside one of the boxes. When a security guard attempted to inspect the boxes, the defendant quickly grabbed a wooden board and covered the box, clearly giving rise to suspicion.The Supreme Court attached particular importance to the fact that the property had been moved from the location where the store normally kept its merchandise. The cart and boxes remained under the defendant’s control throughout, and he had already pushed them beyond the point where customers were required to pay for merchandise. The wooden boxes were not themselves items offered for sale, which further indicated an intention to conceal the property and evade inspection.In this case, Although the property had not yet been taken outside the store, the Court held that it had already been moved and carried away. Together with the concealment and the surrounding circumstances, this was sufficient to establish dishonest intent. The Court therefore ruled that the defendant had committed completed theft, rather than merely attempted theft.Another important issue was that whether the conduct amounted to a completed offense or only an attempt was regarded as a question of law concerning public order. The prosecution was therefore entitled to raise the issue before the Supreme Court even though it had not previously appealed on that point. However, because there had been no appeal concerning the sentence, the Supreme Court could not increase the term of imprisonment. It therefore amended the judgment only to convict under Section 335 (11), paragraph one, while maintaining the suspension of sentence and probation.This case is therefore an important precedent for theft in department stores and retail premises. It focuses on whether the property has been moved out of the owner’s normal control, rather than requiring that the property be physically removed from the premises before the offense is complete.

Interesting Article
The case arose during an ordination ceremony. The injured party was participating in a traditional long-drum procession when a gold necklace he was wearing fell off inside a pavilion. A boy under seven years old found the necklace and gave it to his 13-year-old sister, who then passed it to their mother, the first defendant, shortly afterward.At that time, the mother was standing beside the pavilion and quickly took the necklace away from the temple. When the injured party later approached her and asked for its return, the first defendant denied any knowledge of the necklace.The Supreme Court held that, although the young boy had “found” the necklace, he had merely picked it up to show his friends and had no dishonest intent. Since the necklace was passed from the boy to his sister and then to the first defendant in rapid succession, the Court considered that the necklace remained within the injured party’s original possession or control and had not yet become “lost property” in the legal sense.When the first defendant received the necklace from her child and immediately carried it away from the temple, despite circumstances indicating that she should have known it belonged to someone participating in the procession and that the owner was likely to return and claim it, her conduct amounted to taking the property with dishonest intent. The Court therefore held that she was guilty of theft under Section 334 of the Penal Code.As for the second defendant, who was only 13 years old, she immediately passed the necklace to her mother after receiving it. The Court regarded this as ordinary conduct for a child and found no evidence of an intention to steal. The charge against her was therefore dismissed.This case establishes an important principle that the mere fact that another person has picked up property does not automatically terminate the owner’s possession or control. Where the events occur continuously and the owner remains in a position to discover the loss or promptly reclaim the property, a person who knowingly takes and retains the property as their own may be liable for theft.