재물손괴
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The criminal facts of the judgment below and the summary of the facts charged of the instant case are owned by dry field C (hereinafter “instant land”) located in Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Defendant leased the instant dry field to the victim D for five years from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2013.
On May 26, 2014, the Defendant sent a certificate of content that the ginseng, which had been planted in dry field, was destroyed by telephone conversations between the victim and the victim, but the victim was employed from around 09:0 on May 26, 2014 to around 12:00, when the victim did not perform the telephone conversations, and then damaged the ginseng owned by the victim, which was planted in the dry field, by walking the luminous land installed in the dry field, and by hanging the ginseng.
The written indictment contains "4-year ginseng dry field approximately 500-600 square meters, which is owned by the injured party in an amount equivalent to 16,270,000 won in the market price which was in mind and kept."
In regard to this, the lower court determined that “the value of ginseng damaged by the victim’s input in the ginseng field cannot be deemed as the value of the ginseng damaged by “16,270,000 won, such as labor cost and material cost,” and that the victim’s approximate statement alone is difficult to readily conclude that the accurate area of the part where ginseng was planted in the ginseng field is calculated as approximately KRW 500-60,” and that the above part is not recognized. However, since the specific value of the goods damaged by the defendant is merely the reason for sentencing and thus does not affect the establishment of the crime, the lower court did not separately determine whether the above crime was committed (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do12928, Dec. 9, 2010).”
The above judgment of the court below is reasonable, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor did not submit any evidence to prove the market price in the trial, the trial court should be subject to the judgment of the court below, unless the prosecutor did submit any evidence to prove the market price.
2. Summary of the grounds for appeal;