The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant was cut trees with C’s permission as the principal owner of a tree, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the Defendant sought consent to the contact point of G through G by threatening to be cut off the electric saws without obtaining the consent of 6 to 7 weeks owned by C at an investigative agency and not obtaining the consent of the State.

The defendant made a statement (37,77 pages of evidence), the victim C's statement also conforms to it (85 pages of evidence record), and the defendant made a request for formal trial against the summary order on July 3, 2015, and then accepted the defendant's mistake without being examined equally.

I think now, I do not know about it properly.

In full view of the fact that the application was presented with the purport that “” (the nine pages of the trial record) and the Defendant made a statement that recognized the facts charged on the first trial date of the lower court (the first trial record), and that “the Defendant’s statement that “I will not directly inquire of the Defendant, but will come back after hearing the son’s words” in the last statement (the 16, 17th page of the trial record), etc., the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that he had a tree 6-7 event without the consent of C.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

B. The fact that the Defendant had a criminal record of the same kind of punishment among the eight-time penal records regarding the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, unlike the original judgment, and that the Defendant denies the instant crime when the Defendant was in the first instance trial, etc., is disadvantageous circumstances, but the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim on July 7, 2015, etc. shall be considered as favorable circumstances.

(b) other.