[2] Whether Gap's act of excavating soil and stone in neighboring land and piling up them on Gap's land constitutes "culpation" (negative)

[2] The excavation of soil and stones from the land adjacent to another person and piling up on the land owned by the defendant is "collection" as it is already separated from the natural condition at the time of excavation. Thus, even if the defendant transported them to another place, it cannot be viewed as "collection" under the Aggregate Picking Act even if it was transported to a different place.

1. As to the first and second points C:

Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Aggregate Extraction Act refers to rocks (limited to rocks for crushed stone), sand, or gravel buried on rivers, forests, public waters, or on or under the surface of the earth, etc., which are used as basic materials for construction works, and is premised on the natural condition that the subject of the collection is in the nature of the subject of the collection. Therefore, "the extraction" in the same Act means the separation of aggregate from the natural environment in any way, such as digging up or taking out aggregate.

Therefore, in this case, the excavation of soil and stones on the land adjacent to the land of this case and piling up on the land of this case is "collection" as it is already separated from the natural condition at the time of excavation. Thus, even if the defendants transported it to another place, it cannot be viewed as "collection" under the Aggregate Picking Act even if the defendants transported it to a different place, it cannot be seen as being pointed out in the ground of appeal.

However, in light of the records, the evidence admitted by the court of first instance, as cited by the court below, was examined, the defendants did not put up only the soil and sand limited to the land in this case, but can be found that the above public building, etc. collected aggregate by selling them in the land in this case as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. There is no violation of law of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the grounds for appeal, and as long as the defendants jointly extracted the aggregate in this case, the court below's decision that punished the defendant's mistake as joint principal offender is just and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding the legal principles of joint principal. The grounds for appeal

2. As to the second point A

According to the records, since it is recognized that the soil and rocks collected from the land of this case include considerable percentage of sand or gravel, the act of collecting the soil and rocks of this case constitutes the act of collecting aggregate, and the decision of the court below that made to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Aggregate Extraction Act as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal pointing this out is not acceptable

3. As to the second point B

According to the records, it is recognized that the soil and rocks located on the land of this case by the non-indicted public building, etc. interfered with the use of the land of this case, and the above defendant's claim for exclusion of disturbance against the above public building, etc. was not possible at the time of committing the crime of this case, but it is recognized that the defendants did not collect only the soil and rocks limited to the above public building, etc., but collected a considerable amount of soil and rocks from the land of this case, and thus, the illegality of the defendants' act cannot be viewed as a self-help act. The ground of appeal pointing this out cannot be accepted.

4. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)