beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty, even though the Defendant was not the victim’s possession, was not the victim’s 10 ppuri from the Defendant’s 10th anniversary of the gist of the grounds for appeal.
2. Determination
A. Since the place to which the defendant collected the farmland belongs belongs is the forest managed by the victim, it is reasonable to view that the ownership of the forest in question belongs to the victim.
On the other hand, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the ownership of agricultural crops belongs to the cultivator, based on the Supreme Court Decision 79Da784 Decided August 28, 1979, the defendant and his defense counsel are as follows: the pro-gu F, who was taken by the defendant, is the person in possession of F, and F, is not the crime of larceny, since the defendant and his defense counsel consented to the gathering by another person that would be the person who would be the person who would be the person who
However, in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, namely, it is difficult to see that F has spread the above three seeds naturally for several years from the forest managed by the victim collected by the defendant, and even if so, it is difficult to see that F has continuously cultivated and managed the seeds of this case (F is difficult to distinguish whether F is the same kind of seeds as that of the seeds it collected by the defendant, and it is difficult to distinguish whether F is the same as that of the seeds it collected by the defendant at the court of the court of the court below, and it is possible to find out the seeds of this case in the way where the seeds were distributed in the past for six years prior to the passage of a variety of NA in the Dong-dong branch, but some accurate time and place may be found." Thus, this part of this case is different from the above Supreme Court ruling as to the ownership of agricultural products and its defense counsel.
(b)the intent of theft;