2. Determination

A. On the other hand, the Defendant, on the leased the instant land from FJ and tending the instant ginseng by directly planting it, constitutes the Defendant’s own possession.

and without the permission of the land owner, this was extracted without permission of the owner.

Even if larceny is not established, it asserts that larceny is not established.

B. Theft is an offense established when another person’s property is stolen.

The fact that the ginseng of this case was extracted at the time stated in the facts charged is recognized by the defendant himself.

This case's ginseng belongs to a person's ownership, and in principle, crops belong to a farmer's ownership without complying with land even if they are in depth on another's land.

Therefore, according to evidence, such as the ginseng cultivation certificate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Da784, Aug. 28, 1979), the ginseng cultivation certificate (see, e.g., Investigation Record No. 83), G, and H, the fact that the Geumsan Partnership completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land on the ground of the exchange as of April 25, 201, on June 1, 201, on the ground that it was exchanged as of April 25, 201, and the Defendant leased the instant land from the representative G from among F type F type, in which he was the former owner of the instant land and cultivated the instant ginseng around October 31, 201. Even if the Defendant had no title to use the instant land at the time of the instant ginseng planting, the Defendant did not have a title to use the instant land.

Even if there are no special circumstances, the ginseng of this case is owned by the Defendant as the cultivator and H.