The defendant had planted trees on the land above G for the Dong business. Since the above scar tree was owned by the defendant as a result of the death of G and the withdrawal from the partnership relations, it does not constitute the crime of causing property damage.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the defendant stated in the police that “the representative of the landscaping business is G and the low (the defendant) is the person who helps him to do so,” ② the defendant stated in the court of the first instance that “the defendant lent money to G in connection with the landscaping business and received interest at a rate of 2%, and even if any profit or loss was incurred due to the landscaping business, it shall belong to G”, the defendant cannot be deemed to have operated the landscaping business with G and the same business, although he was in the status of the creditor who lent the business fund to G.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.