The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) When the construction equipment was not available at the site of restoration works against the stone retaining wall, which is likely to collapse, the Defendant removed the instant concrete retaining wall as incidental to the instant concrete retaining wall. On December 19, 2013, the public official I of the office of Kimhae-si sent an oral instruction to complete construction works after leaving the site of Kimhae-si and D. Accordingly, the Defendant removed the instant concrete retaining wall.

2) Since the instant concrete retaining wall is owned by the State because it is consistent with the road and is owned by the State, the granting of the retaining wall at the public official’s order is dismissed as it falls under the victim’s consent or is a justifiable act.

3) Even if the owner of the instant concrete retaining wall isD, the Defendant’s act according to the public official’s instruction constitutes misunderstanding that his act under Article 16 of the Criminal Act does not constitute a crime under the law, and that there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the misapprehension of facts and legal principles. According to the witness E’s legal statement, it is recognized that there was no need to leave the retaining wall of this case for the purpose of restoring the retaining wall of this case, since there is another way to open equipment at the site of the retaining wall restoration work of the retaining wall of this case at the time. Meanwhile, according to the inquiry report of the fact by the Kim Jong-si on May 19, 2016, the FF and J as the addressee around August 2012 sent an official door to check and restore the retaining wall’s own safety, but according to the witness E’s legal statement, it is found that Kim Jong-hae’s official visited the site of restoration work on December 19, 2013, and that there is considerable danger that the retaining wall of this case was stored in the retaining wall structure of this case.