The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. On August 1, 2016, the lower court dismissed the public prosecution as to the damage of a special asset from August 1, 2016 among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged.

However, since the defendant filed an appeal only for the guilty part of the judgment of the court below on the grounds of mistake of facts and illegality in sentencing, and the dismissal part of the court below's decision was not appealed by both the defendant and the prosecutor, and thus the dismissal part of the prosecution becomes final and conclusive separately, the scope of the

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) With regard to the fact that the instant facts charged, one of the instant facts charged, the lower court: (a) found the Defendant sleeped concrete walls at the door of the stone fence.

However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, since the defendant's place where a stone fence is sleeped and concrete brick is different from each other.

2) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not clearly state whether this part of the allegation was about Article 2-2-1 (a) of the facts charged in the instant case and whether it was about Article 2-2-2 (b) of the instant facts charged, and it is determined that all of the two parts were alleged.

In relation to the victim's house and warehouse, the victim's house and warehouse invaded the victim's land G of the D religious organization, and since the victim was aware of this, the victim has lawfully occupied the relevant part of the land.

It is not possible to see that the defendant's entry belongs to the above temple land, and the defendant intrudes on the victim's residence.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

3) As to the facts charged in the instant case, since the victim consented to the removal of a warehouse, the crime of destroying special property is not established (the victim stated that he did not consent to the court below, but the victim stated that he did not have consented thereto, which is perjury.