The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, even though the causal relationship between the defendant's act and the damage to trees is recognized, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. A. Around October 27, 2010, the Defendant purchased the D 2,906 square meters from E, the Defendant, at around February 10, 201, extracted from E the victim F, the victim F, who was planted at the same place on February 10, 201, arbitrarily extracted 147 mar trees from the market price, and moved them to the edge of the said land, and destroyed the property by withering it.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant stated that he continued drinking water after transplanting trees; (b) during the period from December 2, 2010 to January 201, 201, the Defendant demanded three times the victim to collect trees; and (c) the Daegu District Court ordered the victim to collect trees even in Supreme Court Decision 2011Da16438, 42840 Decided December 8, 201, the Defendant did not comply with the victim despite having ordered the victim to collect trees; (d) in so doing, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s death phenomenon which occurred rapidly over a long period of time was attributable to the transplant of trees around February 10, 201, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that it was insufficient to recognize the facts charged solely with the witness F’s legal statement, F’s written complaint, the police’s written statement on the statement on F’s written statement on the statement by the police on the grounds that there was no proof otherwise by the prosecutor.

C. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court. In other words, the Defendant, even though he was aware that the trees planted in the above land were the victim’s ownership, extracted the trees of this case from the original place and transferred them to the edge of the above land in order for the victim to be not in compliance with the Defendant’s request for the collection of trees. The trees of this case as seen earlier are planted regularly at a certain distance of up to 1.5 meters from the front and rear side of the instant land, and can grow up while maintaining the shape of trees.