All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

shall not be deemed to exist.

With regard to the damage of property, the Defendant requested the Victim F to remove the branches on the basis of Article 240(1) of the Civil Code, and the Victim F to comply with the request under Article 240(2) of the Civil Code. Thus, the act constitutes a legitimate act.

In full view of the victim’s statement, on-site photograph, I, and J’s confirmation of facts, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, even if the Defendant identified the victim and damaged the reputation of the victim, and installed the iron-works signboard and plastic ploss containing the insulting contents, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

The sentence (1.2 million won) sentenced by the court below to the defendant which was unfair in sentencing is unfair because it is too unfluent.

Judgment

Since larceny is established as a result of the thief of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the Defendant’s assertion of the fact, since larceny is a crime committed since the possessor of the property becomes the victim of larceny or the possessor of larceny is deprived of the possession of the possessor, the owner of the property shall be deemed the victim of larceny (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Do131, Nov. 11, 1980). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the lower court, 3 of the instant room title is deemed to have been under the joint possession of G and D as the victim’s ownership, and as long as the Defendant without obtaining the consent of G, it shall be deemed that the said room title was stolen.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that this part of facts is erroneous is without merit.

Land and buildings on the ground C in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, are owned by H, and H.