beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the lessor of the instant land entered into a lease contract with the victim, who is the lessee, agreed that the instant trees shall be owned by the lessor in the event that the victim does not move the trees of this case after the lease contract was terminated. Since the lessor, upon the fulfillment of the said special agreement, has the authority to legally and practically dispose of the trees of this case, the act of extracting the trees of this case constitutes either the act according to the intent of the lessor who has the authority to legally and de facto dispose of the trees of this case or the case where the victim’s understanding is understood, and the Defendant did not have any awareness that the trees of this case are another person’s property.
2. The Defendant: (a) around August 29, 201, on the grounds that the victims of the dry field leased by the victim D, located in the Gunsan-si, Si, Gunsan-si, did not collect planted trees as the victims of the dry field due to the fall-day cart even after the lease contract was terminated; (b) around August 29, 201, the Defendant destroyed and damaged 50% or more of the trees owned by the victims using
3. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) trees on the land of four parcels, such as the Gunsan-si, Seoul, etc., planted on the basis of the land lease (hereinafter “instant land”) are owned by the victim, who is the lessee; and (b) in respect of trees, the lessor acquired the ownership by implementing the method of nameation; and (c) accordingly, the lessor performed the method of nameation on the instant trees.
or to the extent that the victim does not explicitly express his/her intent to waive ownership, the victim agreed to be owned by the lessor if the victim does not transplant trees.
The Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to deem the lessor’s ownership of trees was transferred solely on the sole ground that he/she did not collect trees.
B. The judgment of the court below is legitimate.