The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The land of this case (hereinafter “the land of this case”) is purchased from G as at the time H purchased from G as ownership and leased free of charge to I (GuJ) to which the Defendant belongs, and the Defendant had the right to use the land of this case under the above lease agreement.

B. Even though the instant land was not owned by H, the Defendant did not know that it was a third party’s ownership at the time of the instant case, and thus did not have an intention to damage another’s property.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. As to the facts charged of this case, the lower court determined that: (a) prior to the creation of the parking lot on the land of this case, the Defendant clearly known that the land of this case was owned by the Defendant or I, not by the Defendant, but by a third party; (b) the Defendant did not confirm at all documents such as a certified copy of the registry or the cadastral map before the creation of the parking lot; (c) the Defendant did not know at all that time, with the trust of the persons inside the above foundation (the former president or the persons affiliated with the foundation) who did not have any ground; (d) the Defendant appears to create a parking lot on the land of this case without any verification procedure; (e) the Plaintiff appears to have confirmed relevant documents through H, etc.; and (v) further, the documents related to the land of this case presented to the Defendant at the time of H (the Daegu District Court Decision 2015No125606) cannot be believed to have been owned by the Defendant at the time of the establishment of the parking lot.