A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On February 20, 2012, the Defendant is the actual land owner that purchased Gyeonggi-do Yangyang-gun D and E in the name of wife C.

1. Around September 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) extracted 12 glue and 13 glue trees from the Gyeonggi-do Yangyang-gun F (E) on September 23, 2015, using the cirregator in the city where the Defendant was planted in the relevant place; (b) the number of fruits owned by the victims G on the market price, which were the 12glue trees and 13glue trees.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property.

2. The Defendant, on October 3, 2015, extracted from October 3, 2015, the number of fruits owned by G owned by the undeveloped victims in the market price where the Defendant was planted in the area by using the digging gear in the Yangyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do, Yangyang-si E on October 3, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. A copy of a certificate of details or a copy of the real estate lease agreement (Submission of a complaint);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on tree photographs damaged;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The instant trees are not planted on the part of the victim, and even if they were planted on the part of the victim, they correspond to the land because they did not have a scenic method or a registration of standing timber, and thus, are owned by the Defendant, the crime of property damage cannot be established.

2. First of all, as to the assertion that the instant trees were not planted on the part of the victim, the Health Team and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court as to the assertion that the instant trees were not planted on the part of the victim, and in particular, the witness G’s legal statement that the instant trees planted and the land where the instant trees were planted on the part of the victim, and the H leased the land on the part of the victim.