beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds of appeal is that the ginseng extracted by the defendant is acquired in good faith by the victim and is owned by the victim, and thus, the court below acquitted the defendant about the theft of the defendant, although it could recognize the theft of the defendant
2. Determination:
A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: from around 07:00 on August 31, 2014 to around 15:00 on the same day, the Defendant extracted approximately 200 km of the three-year ginseng (hereinafter “the ginseng in this case”) owned by the victim D (W, 34 years old) and 20 km of the three-year old ginseng (hereinafter “the ginseng in this case”) owned by the Defendant from around 07:0 on August 31, 2014, and stolen approximately 3,380,000 won of the above ginseng owned by the Defendant.
B. The lower court’s judgment: (i) In principle, agricultural crops belong to the ownership of a farmer without complying with the land even if they are in depth on another’s land.
Therefore, according to evidence, such as the ginseng cultivation certificate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Da784, Aug. 28, 1979), the ginseng cultivation certificate (see, e.g., Investigation Record No. 83), G, and H, the fact that the Geumsan Partnership completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land on June 1, 201 on the grounds of the exchange as of April 25, 201 by the Geumsan Partnership on the grounds of the exchange as of April 25, 2011. The Defendant leased the instant land from the representative G from among F type F type, in which he was the former owner of the instant land, and cultivated the ginseng of this case on October 31, 201. Thus, even if the Defendant had no right to use the instant land at the time of the instant ginseng planting, the Defendant did not have a title to use the instant land.
Even if there are no special circumstances, the ginseng of this case belongs to the ownership of the Defendant and H, a farmer, and ② Accordingly, D claims that the ginseng of this case was included in the object of auction and acquired ownership since it was awarded a successful bid. However, it was established on the land of this case.