A. Although the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged in this case, misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, laid down a hullum owned by the victim, the above hullum was a construction of a neighboring Defendant’s land, thereby permitting a hullum to build a hullum in line with the boundary of the land. Thus, the crime of destruction is not established on the ground that the victim’s consent was obtained.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of damage. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: (i) the victim consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court below that there was no consent from the Defendant from the investigation agency to the court; (ii) the Defendant was given consent from the victim on the date of surveying the boundary, but the public official I in charge of the survey at that site, street cleaners J stated that the victim was unable to hear the consent from the investigation agency; (iii) the above I sent the Defendant a warning to the investigation agency that the victim did not remove the hullumum without the victim’s consent at that site; (iv) E sent the victim’s answer to the date of surveying the boundary of the Defendant that “I will leave the hullumum.” However, the victim’s response to the victim’s “I” on the ground that it is difficult for the Defendant to make a statement on his/her personal relations, and that it is difficult for the victim to believe that he/she was removed the hullumus.