The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts (1) The Defendant’s act does not constitute the crime of causing property damage on the ground that the Defendant’s act did not constitute the crime of causing property damage on the ground that it was true that the dry field of this case was excavated from the excavation period, but did not have a pyrasus in the dry field, and that it did not constitute property

(2) There is no fact that the defendant had inflicted an injury upon the victim.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by pronounced guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in the first instance trial, i.e., (i) the victim consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court below that “Yed field, Apopia, Apopia, Apopia, and Apopia were being infected with harvest (Evidence No. 37, 45, and 46).” (ii) the Defendant stated in the police investigation that “ten persons had been infected with 10 popia capable of spooning” (Evidence No. 57 of the evidence record), (iii) the property which is the object of the crime of property need not have an objective monetary exchange value, and the owner or possessor has a subjective value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do3057, May 10, 196).

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below in the first instance trial, which are ① the victim consistently uses from the investigative agency to the court below for the acceptance of Orala.