'Bicycle Parked for Two Days, Still in the Same Spot'... How Does the Law Judge Theft?

"No Evidence to Prove Riding Without Intent to Return" Not Guilty

The photo is unrelated to the article content.

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A man in his 50s who rode a bicycle parked on the street without a lock and returned it to its original place after two days was acquitted in a theft trial.

According to the court on the 24th, Judge Yang Hwansung of the Criminal Division 3 at the Seoul Central District Court recently acquitted Mr. A (59, male), who was charged with theft.

Earlier, Mr. A was prosecuted for riding and stealing one bicycle (worth about 800,000 KRW) belonging to the victim Mr. B in front of Exit 1 of Dongjak Station, Seoul, around 4 p.m. on May 9. The bicycle was found to have been parked by Mr. B’s son on a railing without any special locking device.

Mr. B’s side posted flyers demanding the return of the bicycle, and Mr. A returned the bicycle to its original place two days later, on May 11.

The prosecution judged that Mr. A had the 'intent to unlawfully gain possession' by using or disposing of another person's property as his own, and requested a summary order for a fine of 2 million KRW, which the court accepted. A summary order is when the prosecutor requests a fine or penalty by written examination only, and the court issues a sentence by reviewing documents without a formal trial.

However, Mr. A appealed this and requested a formal trial, and the first trial court acquitted him, stating, "There is no evidence to believe that the defendant rode the bicycle without the intention to return it."

Judge Yang said, "The defendant rode the victim’s bicycle even though his own bicycle was nearby, and he has a history of multiple punishments including crimes such as using a lost credit card," adding, "The prosecution seems to base the main grounds of this case on these facts, but it cannot be said that the defendant’s intent to unlawfully gain possession has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt." He also pointed out that the submitted evidence did not include details about the time and route Mr. A used the bicycle, where he kept it after use, or the circumstances of its return.

Furthermore, "Even if there are circumstances such as contradictions or suspicious aspects in the defendant’s claims or excuses that raise doubts about guilt, the judgment must be made in favor of the defendant," and "It is equally impossible to conclude the intent to unlawfully gain possession solely because the defendant’s explanation about the circumstances of riding the bicycle is somewhat unconvincing," Judge Yang added.