The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. With respect to the damage of property among the facts charged in this case, as to the damage of property among the facts charged in this case, the wooden house and warehouse that the defendant damaged is almost no substance of the building, and the defendant was engaged in equal work on the opportunity to excavate yellow soil, and therefore there is no object of damage or there is no intention to commit a crime of causing property damage. As to the larceny, the crime of causing property damage is not established, and since the soil of neighboring victim's land was excavated by negligence in the course of digging soil from the land owned by the defendant, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of all of the facts charged in this case without a intention to commit larceny.

2. Determination

A. (1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below as to the damage of property: (i) the Defendant was awarded a lump sum of land E, G, and K in Taean-gun in 194, and thereafter sold land to L around 2004; (ii) the Defendant appears to have been well aware of the existence and ownership of the above house because the instant wooden house, etc. owned by the victim was located over the F land owned by E and the victim; and (iii) the said house was left alone without a long-term management; and (iv) even if the said house was owned by all directors of the building, the victim still asserted the right to the house as owner; and (iii) if the said house was not well managed, it is difficult to deem that the said house was a non-use or usefulness of the property; and (iv) according to the victim or village statements made by M, the Defendant still did not have been aware of the fact that there was a long-term occupancy of the house in this case.