The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A person who suffered damage by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

The right to cultivate is not a "business" subject to protection of interference with business because the content, effect, etc. of the right to cultivate is not prescribed by law.

Even if the existence of cultivation right is recognized, C is first transferred to E before transferring the cultivation right to the land of this case to E, so E and the victim cannot acquire the cultivation right to the land of this case.

On the other hand, the defendant secured possession by implementing farmland-oriented projects on the land of this case, and had the right of cultivation and lien.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant, on September 2015, 2015, committed an act of cutting a seed from the time to time on the instant land and exercised the “power” against the victim.

Defendant’s act is justifiable.

In addition, the tree planted by one victim on the land of this case is consistent with the land of this case, which is a non-owned property, and the tree also becomes a non-owned property.

Therefore, the cultivation of the tree is not subject to the protection of the interference with the business as the business without the value of protection, but is not subject to the crime of damage to the property due to the lack of otherness of the property.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) It is difficult to view that C has finally transferred C the right to cultivate the instant land to C solely on the sole basis of the circumstance alleged by the Defendant, including No. 1 of the certificate.

As properly explained by the court below, the victim acquired the right to cultivate the content that the victim can cultivate by actually occupying the land of this case from E.

The cultivation duties of the victim based on the right of cultivation fall under the "business" subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business.

2) In addition, as the court below properly states, the victim shall start the time from the land of this case by J around B, 2014.