All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in G, and the Defendants become aware of the ownership of the ginseng of this case at least around January 2016. Accordingly, the Defendants’ act of collecting the said ginseng at will and between the Defendants constitutes larceny.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the instant facts charged was as follows: (a) on April 4, 2015, the Defendants died while planting a paper c and D (hereinafter “this case’s land”); and (b) the Defendants managed the said ginseng between the Defendant’s wife F and F; (c) at the time of collecting ginseng, the Defendants agreed to KRW 5 million to the F and managed the ginseng of the said land.

On the other hand, on January 15, 2016, the victim G was rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation that "the victim FF, E He, and I shall implement the procedure of succession to the ginseng cultivated on the land in this case due to the payment in lieu of debt to E" with respect to the loan claim of 2015 Ma15 Ma153565 at the Jung-gu District Court on January 15, 2016, and from March of the same year, cultivated the ginseng succeeded from the land in this case to the payment in substitution.

The Defendants laid off the ginseng field roof from October 10, 2018 to December 12 of the same month on the land of this case. The Defendants, from around 07:30 of the same month to around 15:00 of the same day, had their employees gather ginseng from the land of this case and let them gather ginseng, and then cut off the ginseng 1,213kg of the five-year ginseng with the market value of KRW 40 million.

As a result, the defendants stolen the victim's property together.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

C. The Defendants asserted in the lower court that the ownership of ginseng as planted on the instant land was against the Defendants, and the Defendants did not have any intent to steals. The lower court is so decided.