The Supreme Court ruled that a person who planted an apple tree on someone else's land and harvested it cannot be punished for theft, destruction of property, and embezzlement.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (Chief Justice Lee Heung-koo) announced on the 24th that it overturned the case against A on charges of theft, destruction of property, and embezzlement, declaring A not guilty and sending the case back to the Suwon District Court.
A had been farming on land registered under B's name in Siheung, Gyeonggi Province, since 1999. B's son, C, who inherited the land in 2009, learned of this fact late in 2022. C is known to have lived primarily abroad and rarely visited the land.
C demanded that A stop farming, but A reportedly refused. Additionally, A harvested approximately 240 apples from the apple trees he planted in 2021 and 2022. Consequently, C filed a theft complaint against A.
A, who was indicted, was found guilty in the first trial and was fined 700,000 won. The prosecution added charges of embezzlement and destruction of property during the second trial.
In the second trial, A was acquitted of the theft charge but found guilty of embezzlement and destruction of property, receiving a fine of 500,000 won. The court concluded that A could not be seen as 'interfering with another person's possession' because he had effectively occupied the land for a long time.
On the other hand, the second trial court ruled that A's harvesting of apples from the land, knowing it belonged to C since 2022, constituted embezzlement. The court also recognized the charge of destruction of property for removing apples from the apple tree.
However, the Supreme Court overturned the case, declaring A not guilty. It stated that the charge of destruction of property only applies when a person's actions harm the utility of someone else's property, and picking apples from the apple tree cannot be considered as 'harming the utility.'
The Supreme Court also noted that it is difficult to see that A had an obligation to preserve the apples for C, thereby ruling the embezzlement charge as not guilty. Embezzlement requires a relationship of trust or delegation regarding managing property between two parties, which was violated.