The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the victim E’s statement, etc., it is recognized that the defendant destroyed trees, inserted, or boomed by the victim, etc.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. In light of the fact that the property value of crops damaged by the defendant of unreasonable sentencing is considerable and that the crime is not divided, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below (the suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 300,000) is too unfounded and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) On April 25, 201, at around 08:50 on April 25, 201, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the Defendant’s dry field owned by the Defendant that was located in Daegu-gun D (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) around KRW 2,00,00 of the market price planted by the Victim E (hereinafter “instant land”); (c) KRW 8,00,000,37,37,200,200,300,300, 30,000, 30,000, 30,000, 15, 15,00, and 10 meters, etc., from the victim’s interest; and (d) destroyed the Defendant’s interest.

(2) The lower court determined that, in light of the following: (a) the victim’s statement that it is difficult to deem the victim’s planted subjects in the instant land to have a life-saving method; (b) the victim’s statement on the volume, etc. of the planted subjects is not consistent; and (c) there is a dispute between the Defendant and the victim over the reversion of compensation for obstacles arising from the expropriation of the instant land; and (d) it is difficult to believe that the victim’s statement that “the victim’s statement that “the victim provided the above subjects with the consent of the Defendant and the lawful title was in accord with the instant land, and thus, it cannot be deemed as another’s property;

In addition, the statement of the victim with insufficient credibility alone is about damage such as water flow, inserting, and booming.