All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to carry out construction, Defendant A (Defendant A) was merely a misunderstanding of fact that a fence and a rail installed a fence on the victim’s wall and a fence again, but it was inevitable for the victim to have been allowed without the victim’s consent because contact with the victim was not in contact with the victim. It is unreasonable to punish the Defendant as a crime of property damage even if partial restitution was made.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the defendants) is too unreasonable. The punishment (the defendant A's fine of KRW 4 million, and the defendant B's fine of KRW 2 million) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, it is difficult to view that the Defendant did not have the intent of damage to the Defendant solely on the ground that the Defendant, without the consent of the victim, acknowledged the fence and a rail owned by the victim (the above fact of Defendant India is recognized).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is just, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misconception of facts alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. As to the Defendants’ unfair assertion of sentencing, the lower court did not appear to have made specific efforts to obtain the consent of the victim, who is the owner of the adjacent land, before leaving the fence, etc. located within the boundary of the neighboring land in the course of constructing a new building (such as the fact that the case is not less complicated, the victim wants to be punished, and the fact that the restoration to the original state is not performed) and the Defendants did not make any effort to obtain the consent of the victim, who is the owner of the adjacent land. Defendant B, as the site warden, was under the direction of Defendant A, who is the owner of the building, as the site warden, even though there were some circumstances for taking into account the part of the wall and the part where the wall and the rail are permitted (Article 2 of the lower judgment), without the direction of Defendant A