The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant (1) has access to the victim’s land and filled up construction materials, there is no fact that the victim’s land was filled up without permission.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of the facts (fence of boundaries) the fact that there was a boundary posts installed on the end of the victim’s farmland at the end of the farmland, and as long as the Defendant did not have the said boundary posts in the process of performing the retaining wall construction, it can be recognized that the Defendant made it impossible to recognize the boundary of the victim’s land, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground of misconception of the fact.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the victim laid up soil at the victim’s land without permission from the investigative agency to the lower court.

According to the on-site photographs submitted by the victim with the complaint, the defendant can recognize the fact that embling up the soil at the victim's land before the reinforced earth retaining wall has accumulated construction materials and soil without any limit, and can confirm tracess that are not passed by the construction vehicle. Considering the fact that the victim's land height is not equal and soil level can be confirmed as high as it is higher, the defendant can recognize the fact that embling up the soil at the victim's land as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is ten parcels out of land in Gwangju City, Gwangju, and 10.