A. The Defendant was aware that the State owned the instant land, but did not know that the victim D acquired the ownership of the said land.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that a mistake of facts was alleged in the appellate trial, and the Defendant is disputing the facts of the crime.

The Defendant perceived the owner of the instant land as the State.

Even if the defendant's damaged trees are the objects of the crime of damaging property as property of another person, the establishment of the crime of damaging property does not have any influence.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. After the judgment of the lower court on the unfair argument of sentencing, the ruling of recommending reconciliation, which contains the content that the injured party does not want to be punished by the Defendant in the relevant civil case (Gohap District Court 2017 Gohap 50624) was finalized.

In addition, when examining the conditions of sentencing and the reasons for sentencing as indicated in the records and changes of the instant case, even if considering all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair due to the lack of sentencing.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.