A man who picked up a luxury watch left on a convenience store outdoor table and walked away wearing it has been convicted of misappropriation of lost property.


—

⚖️ Case Overview

Court: Yeoju Branch of the Suwon District Court

Decision Date: January 13, 2026

Charge: Misappropriation of lost property

Sentence: ₩1,000,000 fine



—

🧾 What Happened?

In November 2024 around 10:30 PM:

The defendant found a Cartier watch on an outdoor table at a convenience store in Yeoju.

The watch belonged to a 33-year-old man.


Instead of:

Turning it over to store staff,

Reporting it to authorities.


The defendant:

Took the watch,

Left the premises,

Wore it on his wrist.




—

🛡️ Defendant’s Argument

The defendant claimed:

The watch appeared broken.

He picked it up temporarily.

He was busy and did not have time to return it.

He lacked intent to unlawfully keep it.



—

🧠 Court’s Reasoning

The court rejected this defense, emphasizing:

The defendant took no steps to return the watch for four days.

He could easily have:

Left it with convenience store staff.


Instead, he:

Wore it and left the scene.


Wearing the watch was inconsistent with mere temporary safekeeping.


The judge found both:

Intent to misappropriate, and

Unlawful intent to retain ownership


to be sufficiently established.


—

💰 Why Only a ₩1 Million Fine?

The court considered mitigating factors:

The watch was ultimately returned.

The defendant had no prior similar convictions.

Although prosecutors claimed the watch was worth ₩10 million:

There was no documentary proof of its exact model or value.

The only basis was the victim’s statement.



Because the value was not clearly substantiated, the court imposed a fine rather than a heavier sentence.


—

📚 Legal Takeaway

Even if property appears abandoned or defective, it remains someone’s property.

Failing to take reasonable steps to return found items can result in criminal liability.

Courts look closely at behavior:

Wearing a luxury watch instead of safeguarding it signals intent.



A reminder that “finding” does not equal “owning.”

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=216214