The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal, as long as the land that the Defendant thought as part of the H land in the Y in the Yan-gun, Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, one owned by his father G, and cultivated large wave (hereinafter “instant land”) is revealed to be the ownership of the victim, the soil constituting the instant land is also the ownership of the victim, and the Defendant merely cultivated large wave cultivated above that he cultivated, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case even though the Defendant’s act with earth constitutes larceny.

2. Determination 1) The term "the theft" means the removal of the property possessed by another person against the will of the possessor and the removal of the property from one's or a third person's possession. Whether a certain property is under the possession of another person shall be determined by considering the intention of control as a subjective element in addition to the scope of management as an objective element or the possibility of factual management, and ultimately, the determination shall be based on the form of the pertinent property and other specific circumstances, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3252, Jul. 10, 2008). However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the request for land surveying to the Cadastral Corporation in dispute over the boundary of land between the defendant and the victim, ii) the fact that the land in this case is proved to be owned by the victim E, ③ the construction work's agreement between the defendant and the victim about the land boundary of the land in this case was indicated.