The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, 1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine or misunderstanding of the fact, 2,50 glue trees planted in the Egnid land (hereinafter “the instant forest”) located in Gyeongcheon-gun D (hereinafter “the instant forest”) were left unattended in the said forest without any management for a long time at February 2015 at the time of February 2015, and there was no subjective economic or economic value.

In other words, the instant tree cannot be deemed as falling under “property” which is the object of the crime of damage to property.

The assertion that F or G renounced the ownership of the instant tree is understood to the purport that it emphasizes the claim on the property nature of F or G in light of the content and context thereof, and thus, it is not judged separately.

2) The instant forest land is jointly owned by H, I, and N, and the instant tree was consistent with the instant forest land. As such, the instant tree is ultimately owned by the instant H, etc.

However, the Defendant was in the joint administrator of H and I N&A’s children.

The tree of this case is removed from the O after being instructed by theO.

Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to commit the damage of property, and there was also the consent of the owner.

As such, the crime of damage to sight or property is not established.

On July 7, 2016, 2016, after the judgment of the court below was rendered, F claimed to the Busan District Court for KRW 100 million for the Defendant to compensate for property damage caused by the removal of the instant tree, but the above court rendered a judgment against F on May 25, 2017 (wholly winning the Defendant).

Accordingly, the F appealed but the decision of the first instance court became final and conclusive by withdrawing the appeal on July 24, 2017.

After September 14, 2017, the defendant asserted the above paragraph 2 based on his defense counsel's opinion.

Accordingly, the initial grounds for appeal (Submission of August 3, 2016) are as follows.