According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant did not have a complaint on the establishment of this case since the defendant's crime was not established since the defendant cut down and the 100 large tree trees were planted in the Dong field for about 20 years, and the 100 large tree trees were planted in the Dong field. Thus, the defendant's crime was not established since the 100 large tree trees were cut and the 100 large tree trees were planted in the Dong field.

On the other hand, the ownership of trees planted without title on the other person's land belongs to the owner of the land and if the land was planted by title, the ownership will belong to the person who was planted by title. However, there is a defect in which it cannot be confirmed by the above Kim Chang-hwan's title. However, according to the above evidence of the court below, the above Kim Chang-chul's decision is sufficient to recognize the fact that he planted and grown the above trees within the fence of the land leased by the defendant and that the defendant cuted the bamboo within the fence and cut the bamboo within the fence, so the above judgment of the court below is not to recognize the fact that the above person's bamboo trees planted by the above Kim Chang-sik's title would be cut against the intention of the person, but it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts due to incomplete deliberation as to the violation of the rules of evidence, and the above judgment of the court below is just and justified in all of the above facts without the title of the defendant's land.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)