The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On October 27, 2010, the Defendant purchased answer 2,906 square meters from E around October 27, 201, and extracted 147 mar trees in the market price, which is the victim F, who was planted at the same place, from E around February 10, 201, and moved to the edge of the said land, and caused damage to property by withering it.

2. According to the results of on-site verification conducted on August 12, 2013 by this Court, a large number of shot trees may be recognized as being dead at present.

However, according to each of the written civil judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 2012Na660, 677 decided July 20, 2012) and written decision of non-prosecution, it is recognized that the police officer confirmed on June 20, 201 that he/she was not damaged, and there is a question as to when he/she was dead.

Of course, considering that the characteristics of trees can require considerable time to the time of death due to transplant, there is a possibility that symptoms caused by death after the identification of the above police officer might have emerged externally.

Considering that a considerable period of time has elapsed, it can only be viewed as due to the act of extraction or transfer, such as the defendant's statement in the facts charged, and it is difficult to view it as the defendant's fault for the following reasons.

First, the Defendant stated that he continuously released water after transplantation, and this is supported by the fact that he was living (if salone, even if the Defendant understood the facts charged to the effect that he was dead due to subsequent acts, such as neglecting water control and neglecting water control, there is no prosecutor’s evidence regarding it). Second, the Defendant stated that the Defendant demanded F to collect the above trees three times between December 201 and January 201, which is the complainant, the Daegu District Court Decision 201Ga16438, December 8, 2011, which is the lower court’s final appellate judgment, and that the Defendant demanded F to collect the above trees three times between December 201 and January 201.