The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

A. Since the Defendant did not agree with the removal of a house on the ground of 524m2, Jeonsung-gun, Jeonsung-gun, Jeonsung-gun, which was owned by D, the Defendant of mistake of facts, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the legal principle, even if the Defendant consented to the removal of the instant house by using the F Village G and H office public official I in charge of the F Village G and H office, the instant house had not been removed if the said I properly performed his duties. Therefore, there is no proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s use and the removal of the instant house. Therefore, the lower court’s conviction against the Defendant by misapprehending the legal principle, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C. In consideration of various circumstances on the Defendant’s grounds of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the village Chapter G consistently stated to the effect that the defendant consented to the removal of the house in this case by asking the investigative agency and the defendant to subsidize the expenses incurred in the removal of the house by telephone at the court below. ② At the time, G calls for the owner of the house in this case other than the house in this case and asked the owner of the house in this case to remove the house in this case. ③ G appears to have not filed a request for removal if the defendant did not agree to the removal after asking the owner of the house in this case. ③ G was notified at any time before the removal of the house in this case, and called the owner of the house in this case by communicating the defendant at the site of the removal on the day.