A defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On November 27, 2017, the Defendant destroyed the property owned by the victim by having the felling business operator C cut down 33 of trees, such as one tree per 1, shot tree per 1, 200 square meters of forest land owned by the victim D and cut down 140 square meters of forest land owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

Part of Defendant’s Court Statement

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the statement by the police of the witness C and D in each legal statement E;

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Whether to acknowledge intent to destroy and damage property under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and his defense counsel did not require C to cut down trees planted in the forest owned by the victim.

Judgment

Considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant was deemed to have had dolusence in relation to the act of C, which caused C to cut trees in a forest owned by the victim.

① The Defendant told that he would cut trees in the boundary line, which is expressed as soon as possible, to C, and asked C to question whether there is any problem depending on the above rapid reduction over three to four occasions, the Defendant asked C to the effect that C is fine.

2. The aforementioned promptest is not indicated by land boundary, where E is installed for the purpose of the survey of standing timber.

In addition, E notified the Defendant that “The construction should be commenced after conducting a boundary survey, as it is set up in the speed of mountain for the prompt survey of standing timber, which may be different from the actual boundary.”

Therefore, even though the defendant knew that the above rapid reduction was not the accurate boundary of the land, he ordered C to take the punishment toward the right to the right to the rapid reduction.

In conclusion, we cannot accept the defendant's and defense counsel's arguments.