The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is entitled to the ownership of the entrance of the instant case in accordance with the self-agreement on April 20, 2001, by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

Since there was no intention to damage property in trust and there was no intention to do so, the defendant's act is a legitimate act because it was inevitable to go to salt farms.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to factual mistake and legitimate act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the record of the instant case reveals that the victim C added the entrance of the instant case to the top of the Daumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumum

In this context, the Defendant, at the investigative agency around 198, purchased the part of 25,00 square meters of 45,640 square meters of Pyeongtaek-gun D Forest land owned by Pyeongtaek-gun (hereinafter “J land”), from K, and stated that the instant entrance was owned by the Defendant. Rather, the Defendant stated that the instant entrance was attached to C (the investigation record page 132), and that the Defendant was installed the entrance of the instant entrance on July 8, 2017, along with the reasoning for appeal sent by the Defendant on July 8, 2016 and the c door set up on June 9, 2017.

In addition, the fact that the defendant knew that the entrance of this case was damaged at the time of the crime of this case was owned C can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant is just.