2. Determination

A. As evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant was asked by the Defendant prior to the two months prior to the theft of the instant trees, and there was no indication that the Defendant was permitted to use the said trees, and there was no statement in the victim DNA investigative agency, stating that the Defendant was actually permitted to transplant the said trees at the time of the theft, or that there was no prior consultation on the transplant of the trees and the amount of the trees.

D, however, at the time of this court’s appearance in this court as a witness, stated to the effect that “B filed a complaint against G for the purpose of receiving the payment of the said payment, with the intent of receiving the payment of the said payment, for the following reasons: (a) inasmuch as trees planted on E and F ground are owned by a legal entity; (b) on the above land, trees planted on the ground, which are owned by the victim’s individual, are transplanted; (c) but (d) the Defendant was in contact with the Defendant after transplanting the trees, confirmed the number and species of the trees planted on the ground and the number of the trees planted at the site; and (d) G claimed the payment of the said payment; and (e) G did not pay the said payment.”

B. Meanwhile, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

1) The Defendant consistently sought, from the police to the instant court, whether the instant tree is transplanted to the victim two months prior to the transplantation of the tree, and the victim permitted it. As such, the Defendant immediately transplanted the tree and demanded the victim to verify the tree species and the number of the trees and claim the price. Therefore, the Defendant is a larceny.