The guilty portion against the Defendants is reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants are against the Defendants.

A. Inspection 1) Recognizing the fact that Defendant B was parked (not guilty part against Defendant B), Defendant B’s front and front wheels of the victim-owned vehicle, with each other, moved about about 5 meters of the above vehicle by sticking the wire rope, and the victim D also moved the above vehicle from the court of original instance to the instrument board and left the maintenance order upon entering the direction of maintenance, etc.

Although Defendant B made a statement, the lower court acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged on the sole basis of the result of a reply based solely on the fact that Defendant B’s above act and the maintenance of the said motor vehicle was irrelevant. In so doing, the lower court erred by

2) The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 300,000 for each of the Defendants) that is unfair in sentencing is too uneasible.

B. Defendant A 1) The victim misunderstanding the fact that Defendant A et al. planted pine trees, etc. on the ground of the instant road in order to prevent Defendant A et al. from passing through the road as indicated in the decision of the court below (hereinafter “the road of this case”). Defendant B did not destroy the same kind and quantity of seedlings as indicated in the decision of the court below, and Defendant B, rather, was planted on the soil filled up at a height of about 50 cm on cement, which would result in a planting of seedlings that could not grow normally, and thus Defendant A destroyed seedlings.

and there is no intention to damage Defendant A.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) Even if the act of Defendant A by misunderstanding the legal doctrine constitutes damage, it is justified as a legitimate act.

2. The appellate court may conduct an ex officio determination on the conviction of Defendant B only when it is included in the petition of appeal or the statement of reasons for appeal submitted within the prescribed period, with respect to a matter that is not the reason for ex officio examination, but is not the reason for ex officio examination.