From October 15, 2012 to December 20, 2012, the Defendant: (a) extracted approximately KRW 700 gall trees in an amount of approximately KRW 94,500,000 from the market price owned by the victim, which was planted in the instant land from around October 15, 201 to around the same month; and (b) destroyed the property owned by the victim by leaving the land at the edge of the instant land by a method of throwing it out to the edge of the instant land.

2. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s lawsuit did not destroy any tree as described in the facts charged.

In other words, with the consent of F, at the time when the Defendant filled up the instant land with the consent of F, only 70 to 100 of the fruit trees were planted, and the Defendant laid down the said fruit trees separately to one side of the edge of the instant land at the time of filling up work, and re-dried them in the form after filling up work. After filling up the instant land, it was dead due to the Defendant’s failure to remove all the fruit trees properly in the course of performing the relevant work at the request of the complainant to remove flat work more than 2 to 3 times after filling up the instant land, and the Defendant did not intentionally destroy the fruit trees.

3. The evidence of criminal facts in the judgment criminal procedure must be presented by the prosecutor, and even if there are somewhat unreasonable aspects of the defendant's appeal, it cannot be disadvantageous to the defendant, and the proof of criminal facts should have a judge have a high probability to recognize it to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form a conviction to the extent that there is no evidence to establish such a degree, there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

In this case, we correspond to the facts charged.