When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The victim C applied for permission to amend the Bill of Indictment to specify the victim at the second trial date, and this court permitted this.

On June 28, 2016, a total of 31,429 square meters, located in D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, K, L, M, N,O, P, Q and R, is a person who is in doubt of member Congo in the land of a square meter of 31,429 meters.

On April 2017, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the market price of the victim’s possession by Tracking the land on the ground that the victim gave up harvest because the scam is not good; and (b) destroyed the land at the lower level by leaving the Track.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and S;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Article 32(1)3 and Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits Filed for Compensation Orders (the victim asserts that, even in April, it would normally be harvested of beer, and the value of beer of this case would be equivalent to KRW 21 million. However, according to the testimony, etc. of the witness or the staff of the National Institute of Seed, C, the U of Rural Development Agency, the village resident V, W, and X at the Korea Agency for the Promotion of Agricultural Community, the damage victim had already waived normal harvest time in light of the state of beer, etc. as well as the state of beer.

There is room for seeing that the economic value of the victim's assertion is deemed to have not been considerable part, so the existence or scope of liability for compensation is not clear, and thus the defendant's assertion and determination thereof are not made.

1. The summary of the assertion is that the Defendant, among each land written in facts constituting a crime, runs away from Y, the main owner of the remaining land (hereinafter “instant land”) with the exception of Da, Jeonju-gun, North Korea (hereinafter “instant land”).