The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Each of the defendants is against the defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendants guilty of 3 glus, mersh and mersh fences, about 3 glusing lines connecting the mersh and mersh fences, and about glusings for fences and glusings for fences, and gluss for fences, which are not owned by the victim C, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s punishment on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. Article 256 of the Civil Act provides, “The owner of a real estate shall acquire the ownership of an article attached to the real estate, except where it is attached with another’s title.”

The term "right holder" as referred to in the proviso of the above Article refers to the right to use another person's real property by attaching his/her movable property, such as superficies, right to lease on a deposit basis, right to lease on a deposit basis, etc. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, if a person without such right has planted trees on another person's land, barring special circumstances

(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined as follows: (a) approximately 3gs, as otherwise stated in the facts charged in the instant case, are trees planted by Defendant A on the Gule-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ltd. (hereinafter “instant ditch”); (b) the owner of the instant ditch is not C but the State; and (c) the owner of the instant ditch did not have any title in planting the said trees on the instant ditch; and (d) C was owned by the State that was the owner of the instant ditch. Accordingly, the lower court determined as consistent with the instant ditch, and thus, C owned the said trees by the State, which was the owner of the instant ditch, thereby constituting the victim of the instant ditch, not the victim of the instant crime.