2. The Defendant asserted that, in the event that the Defendant was awarded a successful bid, the Defendant felled of pine trees, etc. planted at a certain area to cultivate 454 square meters prior to E (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) in order to cultivate spawn in order, and the Defendant thought that pine trees, etc. planted in the victim’s land was planted on the Defendant’s land by misunderstanding the boundary with the C preceding 683 square meters belonging to the Defendant’s land adjoining the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “victim’s land”), and cut down the trees, etc., and that there was no intention necessary for the establishment of the crime of destroying and damaging property

3. The victim appealed against the prosecutor’s non-prosecution decision issued to the effect that the defendant had no intention to destroy and damage property regarding the act stated in the facts charged of the instant case, the prosecutor of the appeal agency determined that the defendant was guilty of the damage to property for the following reasons, and directly prosecuted the defendant.

(1) The boundary between the land of the defendant and the victim is clearly distinguishable from the land of the defendant to the extent that the person can have a divesive length, which is also confirmed by a field photograph (investigative Records 257 pages).

② At the time of the auction of land, when the Defendant discovered the location of the victim’s land, F, a witness F, residing in the nearby village, pointed out the location of the victim’s land. However, the Defendant neglected this and felled most of the pine trees planted on the victim’s land.

③ The shape of the Defendant’s land is in the form of “salone” and is the smaller in the area adjacent to the road.