The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On May 6, 2019, the Defendant: (a) received a text message, “Franchiscing 22 in the Simsan-si B (hereinafter “instant land”) with the victim and jointly cultivated the ancient species 22 (hereinafter “the mother species of this case”) in the Simsan-si B (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) transferred the mother species of this case to one’s own field after receiving the text message, “Franchiscing vege vege vege vege vege vege get vege vege vege get vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege ves vege vege vege ves vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege ve.”.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, 1) If the crops cultivated and cultivated another person’s land mature and have been independent of their owner, ownership of the relevant crops belongs to the farmer, regardless of whether or not a legitimate right of cultivation exists (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da206870, Apr. 30, 2014). As such, the Defendant was jointly cultivated by the victim, D, G, H, and I (Evidence No. 47,50, and hereinafter collectively referred to as “victim, etc.”).

() At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that “the cultivator of the crops planted in the instant land is the victim, etc.”, but at least, it appears that “the fact that he/she is under joint cultivation by others than the victim,” was aware of the fact that “the Defendant is under joint cultivation by others than the victim,” (Evidence Nos. 35, 36 pages of evidence).