beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The legal principles that crops planted without a title on another’s land belongs to the ownership of the person planting such crops, which correspond to the above land and belong to the ownership of the landowner. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant damaged the “property owned by another person” due to the victim’s belonging to the ownership of the landowner of this case. 2) The Defendant’s destruction of the meat that was planted by the victim without permission constitutes a justifiable act or self-help and thus, its illegality is dismissed.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. In a case where crops are cultivated without the right to use and make profits from the land owned by another person as to the assertion that they are not property owned by another person, the ownership of the crops belongs to the farmer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Do82, Mar. 10, 1970). In light of the above legal principles, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the Health Center, the court below and the court below, and the court below, it can be recognized the fact that the victim planted the eavesma on the land of this case owned by another person without the right to use and make profits from the land of this case. Thus, since the ownership of the above ancientma belongs to the victim, it is reasonable to deem the above ancientma as property owned by another person, and there is no other
Furthermore, even according to the Defendant’s statement at the trial court, the ownership of the land in this case belongs to a third party, not the Defendant, and the Defendant is the lessee of the land in this case, as alleged by the Defendant, and even if the above Go-gu horse conforms to the land in this case and belongs to the landowner’s ownership, it is not the ownership of the Defendant, and it still constitutes the property owned by another person, and thus, the conclusion