The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts), the fact that the defendant stolen 10 galk trees owned by the victim, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case can be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

2. Determination

A. Around January 5, 2015, the Defendant purchased 50gs of fin tree in the land of Seopo-si E (F, G, H, I, J, K, L, L, M, N, E, andO) from Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Da, and 11gs of E (F, G, H, I, J,K, L, M, N, E, andO) as a landscape business operator. On January 26, 2015, the Defendant additionally purchased 20gs of fin tree in the above land and was designated from the said D.

On February 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) had the Roman, who was employed by him, engaged in digging out galk trees purchased from the above D; and (b) had the Defendant thin out 10,000 galf trees worth KRW 5,00,000,000 in the market price of the victim, who was planted in P and Q in the vicinity of the above land (hereinafter “instant land”).

As a result, the Defendant stolen 10 gyms, which are property owned by the victim.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, when the Defendant purchased cogion trees from D from D and around January 2015 in order to designate cogion trees again from D and U representative director of U who purchased cogal trees from D and the Defendant around January 2015 in order to sell cogal trees, as well as to designate cogal trees subject to purchase and sale, D provides guidance on cogal trees in the instant land, which were in the instant land, as a dry field, as the subject matter of sale; (b) was known that cogal trees in the instant land were to be purchased from D, so that the Defendant was to take out cogal trees in the instant land with the knowledge of cogal trees he purchased from D, and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was sufficient to deem that the Defendant, with the intent of larceny, was to withdraw cogal trees on the instant land.