The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the panel installed by the defendant with a pents is owned by the defendant, even if it is owned by the defendant, it does not constitute property since it does not constitute property since it does not constitute property since it is owned by the family, and the defendant does not recognize that it is owned by the defendant, so there is no intent of illegal acquisition.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below.

1) The Defendant and D are the land in Daegu Suwon-gu C (hereinafter “instant land”).

2) At the same time, there are two warehouses on the land above the instant land by dividing the specific parts of the said land into one’s own farmland. Of them, there are two warehouses on the left-hand warehouse, and the Defendant and D jointly use them, and the Defendant raises a chickens by creating a chickens in a part of the right-hand warehouse.

3) D around May 2005, at a construction site located in Daegu Suwon-gu F, and remaining EGI pentle board (hereinafter “instant board”).

A) Around October 2011, a space was narrow and moved to the right warehouse. (4) The Defendant around April 2012, the part cultivated by the Defendant among the instant land and the fenced on the road boundary.

B. 1) First of all, the Defendant’s argument is consistent from the investigative agency to the court of original trial that “A panel used at a construction site located in the Daegu Suwon-gu F and kept the remainder in the right warehouse.” The Defendant’s board used as a fence attached the G, H restaurant, and I restaurant’s advertising string located in the Daegu Suwon-gu (Evidence No. 74 of the evidence record). Meanwhile, the Defendant’s board used at the construction site in the Daegu Seo-gu J, Daegu-gu, on the right side.