절도
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the victim D is the owner of the instant fume, although he was on the land owned by him, the defendant was transferred to the owner of the instant fume, and the owner of the instant fume, who was requested by the F, was a U-type fume, not a fume, and the defendant had a question as to who is the owner of the instant fume, and there was a fact about whether D is the owner of the instant fume, and whether D is the owner of the instant fume, and that the defendant was unable to perform construction. In full view of the fact that D was his own fume, the defendant had an intention to use the fume in accordance with its economic use, but the judgment below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant, around April 12:00 on April 8, 201, stolen an amount equivalent to KRW 500,000,000 per fume, which is owned by the victim D, on the ground that the Defendant, in the Namyang-si, was a farming-ro river, if the fume is found in the farmland of Namyang-si, and the river flow is to be installed on a farm road.
B. The lower court determined that the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s evidence, namely, that the Defendant and E did not interfere with or interfere with the construction of the instant fume while the Defendant and E are moving the fume, the instant fume appears to have existed in G, which is the land owned by F, and F was entrusted with the construction of four fume pipes on the instant G land to D around November 208. The lower court determined that the Defendant and E were in possession of the instant fume, and that F was in charge of the construction of four fume pipes on the instant G land due to the flood that occurred thereafter, and that F was deemed to have sold D a part of the fume with the fume as the fume is owned by the Defendant and the Defendant transferred the fume to H’s employee who is operated by H.