Where a purchaser transplants his/her purchased seedlings according to a special agreement after notification of cancellation without effect, the nature of larceny;

After the other party begins the performance of the contract, one of the parties to the contract cannot rescind the contract by waiver or repayment of the down payment. Thus, if the buyer commenced the transplantation work of seedlings pursuant to a special contract allowing the recipient to receive transplant of seedlings even before the payment of the remainder of the contract for the purchase and sale of seedlings, the seller’s rescission of the contract thereafter is invalid, and therefore, the buyer’s act of transplanting seedlings after notification of the contract cannot be deemed to have an intention to steal another’

Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 565 of the Civil Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 82No1314 delivered on February 24, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the event that one of the parties to a contract waives down payment, deposit, etc. paid at the time of the contract or redeems down payment, deposit, etc. and cancels the contract, the other party cannot be permitted to do so after the commencement of the contract, and according to the legally confirmed judgment of the court below, the defendant completed the transplantation of seedlings by mobilization of human resources from February 16, 1982 to March 16 of the same year according to the special agreement that the remaining payment of the contract of this case can be delivered to transplant at any time before the payment of the contract of this case. Thus, there is no validity of notification of termination of contract to the defendant after the execution of the contract of this case, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the defendant had expressed approximately approximately KRW 2,500 as a result of the written indictment executed by the defendant after the above cancellation notification that the defendant had an intent to steal the other party's property by exercising the defendant's right. Accordingly, the decision that

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)