A. Fact-finding misunderstanding of the instant water can not be the object of the crime of damage to property, having no economic value by harvesting all the maizes of the instant water.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, it can be acknowledged that the instant pentine had no economic value or utility, since it can be objectively acknowledged that the cultivation had not yet been completed, such as the giving and receiving of pentines that have not been harvested, etc., and that the property, which is the object of the crime of destruction of property, does not necessarily have an objective gold exchange value, and that the owner has no subjective value.

As such, the waterside of this case constitutes the property which is the object of the crime of damage to the property.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, it is recognized that the amount of damage in this case is relatively minor.

2) In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recklessly damaged crops cultivated by another person; (b) did not agree with the victim; (c) did not reach an agreement with the victim; (d) the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment several times; (c) there was no special change of circumstances after the lower judgment was sentenced; and (d) other various conditions attached to the sentencing indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, and environment, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and inappropriate.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.