beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal presented a statement of reasons for appeal to the effect that “In light of the fact that the Defendant may voluntarily dispose of posts owned by the victim in the case No. 2016 money 15012, and that the Defendant suffered an injury from an injury from an injury from an during the course of ordinary earth works on his own land, the judgment of the court below is sound,” the Defendant submitted a statement of reasons for appeal.
The judgment of the court below on the above case is a judgment which has been rendered by the appellant which could not be easily accepted, and thus, the appeal has been lodged.
“The entry was made”
Even if an appellate court decides that there was a mistake of facts in the judgment of the first instance or an error of unfair sentencing as to the grounds for appeal, it shall examine the grounds for appeal (see Supreme Court Order 2002Mo265, Dec. 3, 2002, etc.). Thus, it shall be decided that the appellate court filed an appeal on the grounds of misapprehension of legal principles, mistake of facts, and unfair sentencing, by comprehensively taking into account the contents asserted by the defendant in the written reasons for appeal and the contents asserted by the original court.
A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) In light of the fact-finding and the fact that there is no economic value that the Defendant extracted and pents, and that there is an adjustment between the Defendant and the victim that “the Defendant may dispose of posts and fences owned by the victim voluntarily” as the District Court 2016 money 15012, etc., the crime of property damage is not established.
2) In light of the fact that there was a conciliation between the Defendant and the victim that “the Defendant may voluntarily dispose of posts and fences owned by the victim” as the District Court 2016 money 2016 money between the Defendant and the victim, the victim’s land boundary was invaded by the Defendant, and the Defendant demanded removal of the land, but the Defendant did not comply with the request and removal of the land, it constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.”
B. The lower court’s punishment (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too excessive.