The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant owned 1/3 of the shares by inheritance of the land of Jeju City on May 9, 1995, and purchased 2/3 of the remaining shares on March 25, 201 and November 7, 2011, and acquired 3,313 square meters of the above land. The victim D purchased 2/3 of the remaining shares on March 25, 201 and transferred the ownership transfer by sale of the land of Jeju-si on March 24, 1986, and the land of the Defendant and the victim are adjoining to each other.

However, around November 13, 2014, the defendant requested the Korea Cadastral Corporation to conduct a boundary survey with the knowledge that the boundary of the victim's land adjacent to his own land was wrong, and as a result, it was confirmed that the victim occupied and used approximately 100 square meters of the land of the defendant.

On December 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) in Jeju City, around December 2, 2014, confirmed that the boundary between the victim D’s land and his/her own land was erroneous; and (b) performed new construction for piling up a boundary fence; (c) in the land occupied and used by the victim, he/she planted and managed wrusium trees.

The Defendant neglected the ownership of 17 years crusal crusal crusal crusal crusal crusal crusal crusal crusal crusal crusal crusal crusal crusal cru

The ownership of trees planted without title on the land of another person shall revert to the owner of the land, and if the ownership is planted by title, the ownership shall belong to the owner of the land.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do3425 delivered on April 24, 1998). The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the victim DNA planted the wrusium with his title around 1997. Thus, the ownership of the wrusium tree belongs to the defendant, who is the owner of the land.

Therefore, even if the defendant was unable to extract wrusal tree owned by the defendant, the crime of causing property damage is not established.

Thus, the facts charged of this case are proven.