A. (1) The Defendant: (a) obtained the consent of the victim, killed the instant trees; (b) however, due to the fact that the Defendant was killed by a mistake in management after the planting, the crime of causing property damage is not established by negligent act.

(2) As a result of the survey of the land, the land where the instant trees were planted was owned by the Defendant. Since the victim did not take a separate method of scambling, the crime of causing property damage cannot be established against the Defendant’s ownership.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court’s judgment on the erroneous determination of facts, the victim only consented to find out all trees within Ma, only that part, if there is a tree dust at the house’s entrance, and there is no consent to find out all trees within Ma. Therefore, the Defendant’s first argument is difficult to accept.

(2) Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, the following facts are acknowledged: (i) the victim stated that the victim was in planting and managing the victim’s additional trees; (ii) the defendant was aware that the victim was the victim’s trees managed; (iii) the defendant’s house and the victim’s house were divided into the victim’s house; and (iv) the above trees were located on the part of the victim’s house; (v) the defendant was aware that the above trees were the victim’s land before the instant case; and (v) the defendant did not raise any question or demand removal of the above trees, regardless of whether there was a name or not, it shall be deemed that the victim attached to the land with the victim’s implied consent.