재물손괴
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, with the consent of the victim, does not constitute a crime of property damage, since he/she extracted a dozine owned by the victim, a seed tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree tree seedlings.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, ① the victim consistently testified from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court that “it does not consent to the Defendant to gather and bring about the victim’s Dog or seedling in the dry field owned by the Defendant,” and ② the Defendant was the Defendant’s investigative agency to change the dry field leased to the victim by a telephone patrolman on March 2016, and then the victim requested the Defendant to set the dry field leased to the victim by a telephone patrolman, so the victim would have been going to bring about the Defendant’s work and take out the crops in the dry field.
After that, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “the victim sent a statement to the victim that the victim want to have another sound.” According to the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant’s statement should state that “the victim consented to commit an act identical to the facts stated in the lower judgment.” However, on April 4, 2016, the Defendant’s statement stated that “the victim would remove seedlings, etc. in the dry field owned by the Defendant until April 7, 2016 and deliver the dry field,” and it is difficult for the Defendant to believe that the above statement was “the Defendant would voluntarily remove,” and rather, the Defendant appears to have done an act as stated in the lower court’s judgment on April 8, 2016, without the victim’s consent.” In full view of the following, the Defendant’s statement appears to have been conducted on his own discretion as stated in the lower judgment without the victim’s consent.