절도
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In full view of the following, the summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the Defendant was notified by F and G that the victim had entered into a new harvest contract with the Scarrate; and (b) the Defendant appears to have entered into an agreement on the automatic termination of the contract unless renewal is made in the agreement every one year in the contract of this case; and (c) the Defendant’s standard theft facts and the willful negligence of theft were recognized, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On August 30, 201, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim E, the owner of D forest land, and KRW 1 million of the harvest price, and KRW 2 million of the harvest price of the said forest with the right to harvest and sell the said forest with the standard, but the contract was concluded every year on condition that the contract can be renewed.
After that, the Defendant renewed a contract for two years and harvested the standard of the above forest, but the victim concluded a harvest contract, such as the standard of the above forest, with the Korea Skynae Seoul Northern Federation, which was notified on May 6, 201 that the Defendant terminated the above standard harvest contract with the victim’s agent from F during the period from May 6, 2014, the contract was lawfully terminated.
Nevertheless, the Defendant employed the human father from around September 10, 2014 to October 10 of the same year, and harvested the 23 spores equivalent to the market price of KRW 11,500,000 from the big tree planted in the above forest.
B. According to the following circumstances, the lower court’s judgment is insufficient to recognize the termination or termination time of the instant contract as stated in the facts charged, and the notification of termination of the contract, as stated in the facts charged, and even if such fact is acknowledged, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was aware of such fact. Ultimately, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s intent of larceny or of theft.