The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is the owner of the instant land (C). The Defendant is the owner of the instant land (C) and the ownership of the land planted on the instant land is the owner of I. However, since it did not have a clear method, D cannot be deemed to possess the ownership or right of possession of the instant land.

2. The method of determination is to prevent the ownership of land owners from being owned as natural by the owner of land due to the conformity of agricultural crops, etc. with the land as a requirement for the ownership transfer of unregistered crops, and to make them the objects of independent transactions.

However, in cases where the land owner requested the disposal of the land, and the defendant and the victim concluded a sales contract for the purpose of the purchase and sale of the land for the purpose of the purchase and sale of the land for the purpose of the purchase and sale of the land for the purpose of the purchase and sale of the land for the purpose of the purchase and sale of the land for the purpose of the purchase and sale of the land for the purpose of the purchase and sale of the land for the purpose of the purchase and sale, the parties concerned agree with the intention

However, as acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the court below, after the defendant sold the Dora which was planted on the land of this case to the victim D, the victim harvested the Dora, which was 390 square meters of total 4500 square meters of the above land, and did not harvest the remaining 60 million square meters.

Therefore, as long as the victim harvested Dora equivalent to approximately 87% of the total Dora, and the defendant also recognized the exercise of such disposition authority, the ownership of Dora in the judgment of the court below shall be deemed to have been transferred to the victim, and otherwise, there is no evidence to regard that the defendant would be can with the above Dora with the consent of the victim, and therefore, it is justifiable for the court below to find the defendant guilty of the crime of larceny.

3. Conclusion, the defendant.