The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B1 of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are not the owner of the instant aggregate, and even if the instant aggregate is owned by the victim, the Defendants collected and sold the instant aggregate under the delegated authority of the victim to collect, remove, and sell the said aggregate, so there is no room to establish special larceny against the Defendants. Even if the Defendants did not have been entrusted with the authority of the victim, the Defendants were taken out under the belief that they had the said authority, and thus, there was no intention of special larceny (the defense counsel of the said Defendants is dismissed, but the Defendants should be tried as alleged above.

2) The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and one year of suspended execution) is too heavy.

B. Defendant C’s imprisonment (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A and B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, this part of the assertion is without merit for the following reasons.

1) Since larceny is a crime established by the deprivation of possession of the property, the possessor of the property is the victim of larceny (Supreme Court Decision 80Do131 Decided November 11, 1980). As can be seen in the record, if the victim G occupied the construction site of this case, so long as the victim G occupied the construction site of this case without the victim’s consent, if the Defendants extracted sand from the above site without the victim’s consent, then the victim’s special larceny of sand is established against the above Defendants regardless of whether the victim is the owner of sand aggregate (the facts charged of this case also indicate that the Defendants extracted and taken out aggregate managed by the victim).

(2) However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above Defendants extracted aggregate from the victim and the victim.