In addition, since the entrance and exit door was installed on the instant land, there was no obstacle to the victim's access, it cannot be deemed that the victim's cultivation business was obstructed.

Next, the Defendant: (a) extracted the victim’s hair and stored in rubber boxes; (b) the victim transferred it to his house, and thus, did not destroy the victim’s property.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine whether the defendant has reached an agreement as alleged by the victim, E, and the defendant.

On April 16 and April 17, 2012, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim and E consistently stated that they did not agree on the content as the defendant alleged in the investigative agency and the court of the court below; ② On the contrary, K stated in the court of the court below that the victim and the defendant agreed to cultivate the land in spring in 2012, and the defendant agreed to do so by the victim. However, while the victim and the defendant were in dispute, it is difficult to believe that the victim made such remarks. ③ The victim reported to the police on April 16, 2012 and April 17, 2012 to the effect that each of the defendants infringed on the land of this case without permission. As such, the victim continued to dispute with the defendant and the defendant obtained consent from E, and it does not appear that the victim agreed to the two proposals.