A. Although the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles have installed cement block fences and steel fences on the part of the instant flooded part, in light of the intent of the installation, relationship with the victim, function of the flooded part, etc., the Defendant cannot be found to have intentionally committed damage to the instant property and boundary intrusion.

B. Sentencing (the sentence of the lower court: a fine of one million won)

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail with the Defendant’s arguments and the judgment on the judgment. Examining the judgment of the lower court in comparison with the evidential materials, the judgment is just and acceptable.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the judgment of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

2) It is recognized that there are some circumstances to consider the Defendant’s instant act; the fact relevance itself is recognized; the Defendant has no history of punishment exceeding the same type of punishment or fine; the Defendant removed cement block fences, etc. after the instant indictment; and the victim does not want the Defendant’s punishment.

However, in light of the content, result, etc. of the crime of this case, the liability for the crime of this case is minor.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following factors: Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading up to the commission of the crime, means, and consequence, etc., the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed to be unfair due to excessively unreasonable reasons.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit and thus, in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.