A. In fact, the Defendant only removed the Gemanium of the victim, which had been across the boundary of one’s orchard, into a lower level and a small saw.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the orchard owned by the Defendant and the orchard owned by the victim, adjacent to the orchard owned by the victim, and the instant triangulation tree was planted as a water-proof forest in the orchard owned by the victim, and ii) the Defendant had been aware of the fact in an investigative agency as follows: (a) the number of arable trees in the victim’s orchard was left in the Defendant’s orchard, and it was so increased.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant made a statement in the lower court (as indicated in the investigation records 21, 22, 40 pages, etc.); (b) the lower court (the first trial date) stated that the facts charged of the instant case are recognized (as indicated in the trial records 23 pages); (c) the victim’s investigative agency’s statement in the victim’s investigation agency and the victim’s photograph also correspond to the facts charged of the instant case, the fact that the Defendant destroyed the victim’s

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the Defendant.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act of Korea, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness as to the unfair argument of sentencing, has a unique area for sentencing determination, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendant has no record of being subject to criminal punishment for the same crime.