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

The land registered in the name of Chokdong E in the name of D, and the land of 484 square meters prior to F is the land cultivated by the victim as a river site with the use fee of 1104 square meters.

On September 20, 2016, the Defendant damaged the property owned by the victim E and the former North Korean Dos to cover approximately KRW 23,850,000 per share of KRW 519,170 (including the amount calculated as KRW 519,170 per share of trees in each room, and the excavation cutting machine, landscaping, and defect repair cost) on the ground that the Defendant damaged 38 shares of the 17-year tree 17-year tree trees that D sawd from around September 20, 201 to around the 30th of the same month and damaged the crops on the land owned by the Defendant.

On the first trial date, the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment as above, and this court permitted it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Investigation report (to listen to the staff G telephone statement from the branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation);

1. Written estimate, photograph, and certified copy of the register (the defendant cultivated H land in the former North Korea-gun, and is owned by the defendant as the trees of this case are planted on the above land or adjoining thereto;

I think, I argue that there is no intention to damage property due to cutting down the trees of the instant room.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following circumstances are acknowledged: (i) H is the land cultivated by the Defendant’s husband and wife as the Defendant’s wife’s wife’s name was the land owned by the Defendant’s wife; (ii) E and F are the land owned by Jeollabuk-do; and (iii) each land is classified by the upper limit; and (iv) it appears that the instant trees were planted in contact with the lower limit, and thus, the instant trees were de facto bordered (Evidence No. 21, 22 of the evidence record); (ii) the Defendant considered the land where the instant trees were planted from a survey technician who measured the surrounding area for the JJ improvement project, as the land owned by the Defendant.

an individual. ...