A. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charge of property damage and violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and thus, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) The Defendant: (a) extracted 6 glus of trees owned by the victim and planted them again in the same location; (b) however, the above trees did not defoliate; and (c) the Defendant did not impair the utility of the property.

On the other hand, the victim planted the above trees on the farm road so that the defendant and the landowner are unable to pass through the farmland. Since the defendant is expected to be unable to grow crops from time to time and suffer enormous damage, the defendant did not have to secure the passage through the surrounding land through the lawsuit to confirm the right of passage through the surrounding land and did not have to extract the above trees. The defendant's act constitutes self-help.

2) Since the part of the instant forest land in violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act has been naturally used for farming purposes for a long time, the Defendant’s capture of aggregate does not constitute an act of temporarily using a mountainous district.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court, the Defendant destroyed the trees owned by the victim.

The judgment of the court below which determined the defendant is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant or by misunderstanding the legal principles.

① The Defendant admitted this part of the facts charged by the lower court, and there is no reason to suspect the credibility of the confession.

(2) The defendant has extracted trees owned by the victim and has completed the relocation work of aggregate and has another tree.