beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is the condition that the victim purchased part of the land of this case and transferred it from the defendant, and the sales contract cannot be deemed to have been established solely on the written confirmation of the defendant's sales agreement, and since the above sales agreement became null and void upon termination, the agreement of this case is still deemed to be the owner of the land of this case since the conditions are not fulfilled, and thus the victim is still deemed to be the owner of the land of this case, and thus the defendant damaged the fruit trees owned by the victim. However, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles
2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that “A request is made for the removal of a stable, felbling, and feling the fat in the city of Busan on March 24, 2012, the Defendant: (a) removed a 5.4 million won total of the market prices of the victim L, which were in mind in the instant Gsan on March 24, 2012, from the F office of the operation of the E in Busan on March 2012, the Defendant damaged the victim’s property in collaboration with E, HH I, I, J, and K by removing approximately 5.5 million total of the market prices of the victim L, which were in mind in the instant Gsan on March 24, 2012, and destroying the victim’s property jointly with H, H I, J, and K.
3. The lower court determined as follows: (a) comprehensively taking account of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and deemed that the victim renounced the right to all of the above ground objects, including the fruit trees planted on the instant land as part of the agreement between the Defendant and the victim on July 25, 2011; (b) thus, even if the Defendant cut down and removed livestock pens as indicated in the facts charged, it cannot be deemed that the victim’s property was damaged; and (c) the Defendant was acquitted on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant destroyed the property owned by the victim.
4...