A. As to the factual relations identical to the instant case, the Defendant had received a final and conclusive judgment of suspension of sentence, the judgment of acquittal should be rendered. Since the Defendant’s act of this case could have increased the function of drainage channels by preventing the intrusion of foreign substances, the Defendant damaged the drainage channel.

shall not be deemed to exist.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) Fact-finding 1) In a case where a criminal trial on whether a final and conclusive judgment exists on the same factual basis, and the same offense becomes final and conclusive, and if a public prosecution is instituted against a case identical with a case on which a final and conclusive judgment has been rendered, a judgment of acquittal shall be pronounced. The identity of the facts charged or the facts charged shall be based on the defendant's act and social factual relations, and its normative elements shall be considered in consideration (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9678 Decided March 23, 2006). The defendant asserted that the final and conclusive judgment of suspension of sentence was rendered on the case such as 142 property damage, etc., and that the facts of the crime of this case are identical to those of the above judgment and the facts of the crime of this case. It appears to the purport that a judgment of acquittal should be rendered on the ground that the crime of this case constitutes a final and conclusive judgment under Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances, namely, ① the summary of the criminal facts of the Chuncheon District Court Decision 2014 and 142 decided December 19, 2014, which were duly admitted by the evidence duly admitted at the lower court and the trial court, were destroyed by the Defendant’s destruction of large-scale sect from the land owned by the victim D located in Pyeongtaek-gun E around April 2014, and that the Defendant stolen earth and sand owned by the victim at the above date, time, and place (2).