Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) the Defendant was found to have committed a speech and behavior that the victim H had shown to waive his/her right; (b) the Defendant was aware of illegality due to justifiable grounds for believing that there was no intention of damage to pine 8glus, and that there was the victim’s consent; and (c) even though the remaining trees were owned by the Defendant and the trees other than pine trees were not planted, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of suspended sentence for four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below also asserted the same purport as Paragraph (a) of the Reasons for Appeal in relation to this part, and the court below rejected the above assertion after recognizing the circumstances such as the reasoning of the judgment on the defendant and his defense counsel in the part of the "judgment on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion". We examine the reasoning of the court below in comparison with the records of this case, we accept the above judgment of the court below, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and duly investigated by the court below and the trial court, the determination on the part as to 11glus, 1glus, 9glus, 3glus, 5glus, 5glus, 5glus, 2glus, 2glus, 1glus, 1glus, 1glus, and 1gs of the given blusium (hereinafter “other trees”), among other trees, the evidence of the prosecutor’s submission was fully taken into account, and the fact that blusss trees recognized by the defendant among the other trees were owned by H and the number of trees other than blusssiums were indicated in the facts charged, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant actually owned by H.