Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding (damage) Defendant is merely a person who moved a cemetery owned by the victim D to a place for the relocation of a clan funeral according to the direction of L, which is the cause of the clan, and thus, the crime of property damage is not established regarding the cemetery.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of fact, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail, stating in detail the judgment on the “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”
The reasoning of the court below is as follows: ① the owner of the cemetery, which is the object of damage to the property of this case, shall be the victim; ② Even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant was instructed L to the effect that “in accordance with the Defendant’s argument, he moved the stone of the stone embankment necessary for this Chapter” and moved the stone embankment to the parking lot axis; the Defendant did not obtain the consent of the victim, who is the owner of the said cemetery; ③ there was no consent from the victim, who is the owner of the said cemetery; ③ the surrounding cemetery, including the victim’s cemetery, was scheduled to move to this Chapter to a construction relationship.
In light of the above, the Defendant’s perception that there was a certain procedure in the cemetery, and the Defendant’s perception that he moved to a tombstone that supports the cemetery without going through such a procedure, it was recognized that the cemetery yard owned by the victim was damaged, and that the Defendant had the intent to impair the utility of property by transferring the cemetery yard owned by the victim to another purpose.
The decision is judged.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law as alleged by the defendant.