절도
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant used the soil at issue in accordance with the original restoration agreement entered into by the Defendant and D, and used part of the soil at the construction site on the Defendant’s side. However, without the Defendant’s involvement, it was used by the site M without the Defendant’s involvement, and the Defendant did not cut soil.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant stolen the soil of this case on the ground of the statement of G, etc. whose credibility is insufficient due to misconception of facts
there is an error of law in finding the person.
2. Determination
A. According to the records, the following facts are recognized.
1) The victims filed a request to E around January 6, 2014, for a river site of 654 square meters prior to 1, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, and 653 square meters prior to N. 653 square meters owned by the victim E (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”). The victims met the river site without permission for development activities on May 12, 2014, and stored a soil (hereinafter referred to as “the instant soil”) where the river site was restored to its original site after being subject to a disposition of restoration on the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “the investigation record 95, 96 pages”) up to 15,00,000 won, and the Defendant did not arbitrarily pay the leased land from 15,000,000 won to 15,000,000,000 won to 15,000,000,000 won to 15,000,000,000 won.