The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant only plucked and plucked up several plucks owned by the victim, which are planted on the land boundary of the victim and the defendant, and there was no plucking or plucking up of the booms, perfors, and mineral trees as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and the degree of damage caused by the defendant's act is very minor and does not exceed 4,935,00

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

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,500,000) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below may comprehensively consider the evidence duly examined and adopted, that is, ① the defendant and the victim reside in Jinju City F and C, and each of the above lands are covered by each other. The boundary part of the land is planted by trees, such as Dog-ri, Dog-ri, and luminous trees owned by the victim. ② The defendant made a statement at an investigative agency that there was an increase in the land owned by the defendant due to the number of trees owned by the victim, which interfered with the growth of crops cultivated by the defendant, and thus interfered with the growth of crops cultivated by the defendant. ③ The victim confirmed the damage of the above trees directly from the mother of the victim's mother from the victim's mother to the court of the court of the court below, ③ The victim stated that the defendant, who was adjacent to the defendant at the time, plucking the above trees of the above trees, and stated that the expenses for removal of the above trees and the statement to the purport that "the expenses for removal of the above trees are damaged in accordance with the law."