2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that he cut and cut the fruit trees from the land owned by the victim, but the land where the above fruit trees were planted was known to the Defendant, so there is no scope of damage to property.

B. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a false criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so long as there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① At the time of permanent residence, F owned a 3302 square meters (hereinafter “E”) before E, and G cultivated fruit trees in each of the above lands, while owning a 11090 square meters of forest land attached to E land (hereinafter “C land”).

② The F and G made the way on which each of the above lands was passed without surveying, and when the E land F owned by the F was included on the street, G allowed F to use part of the C land owned by it, which was lower than its length.

③ After that, on January 6, 2003, the victim purchased C land from G, and the Defendant purchased E land from F on March 17, 2009.

The defendant does not conduct a boundary survey when he purchases the above E land from F.