The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding victim cannot be deemed as occupying the above land solely on the ground that the victim passed through the land of Incheon Jin-gun, Incheon (hereinafter “instant land”). Even if the possession of the victim is recognized, the Defendant, the owner of the instant land, did not consent to the use of the land, and thus, is not a lawful possession.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts.

1) On January 26, 2016, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant land, consented H to the use of land owned by the Defendant, including the instant land (which was divided into Pro, Pro, Nov. 18, 2016, N, and E, respectively), and drafted a written consent to the designation and public announcement of a road under the Building Act with respect to the said land, with respect to the application for permission for construction and development of H’s land, application for permission for mountainous district conversion, and application for mountainous district conversion permission.

2) On April 2016, H submitted relevant documents to the Cheongman-gun Office of the Seocho-gun, 2016 to construct a detached house on the ground of the Incheon Cheongjin-gun L, and conducted construction. The victim was delegated by H, and the victim was in charge of the work regarding H’s land development, such as receiving a written consent to land use from the Defendant.

3) On January 25, 2017, H had the victim construct a road on the instant land as it is necessary to construct a road on the instant land in order to obtain a building permit for the said detached house, and the victim constructed a concrete road by bringing the construction cost into the instant land.

In light of the above factual relationship, the victim's request or instruction against H, which was the right to use the land of this case.