The defendant shall be innocent.

At around 07:00 on April 2013, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the fact that the forest in question can not be a F-owned forest with the Defendant’s permission for digging-out in the Asia-si forest owned by the Victim D; (b) was cut off by gympum king, 44 weeks market price of the victim owned by the Defendant; and (c) was mobilized by gympum, 6.16,00 won at 44 weeks market price.

Judgment

1. According to the Defendant, F, D, and G’s legal statement, D’s investigative agency’s statement, investigation report (a written agreement and appendix), etc., ① the Defendant, as at the time stated in the facts charged, 44 malkyl trees (hereinafter “instant tree”) planted in the F F’s H H-owned forest (hereinafter “E forest”), victim E-owned forest (hereinafter “E”), without the victim’s consent, is recognized to have purchased the entire parts of the trees planted above “I forest”, “E forest”, “E forest and field”, “K forest and field”, and “K forest and field” from the landscape business operator without the victim’s consent. However, in light of the following facts recognized by the aforementioned evidence, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant owned the victim’s forest and forest in the instant case, “I forest and field” or “IJ forest and field” and “IJ forest and field” as part of the instant forest and forest and field owned by the victim’s 30 mal.

B. G, which the F and the victim mediated the purchase of each of the above forests and fields, leased each of the above forests and fields to the landscaping business entity upon their permission, and the above landscaping business entity agreed to planting trees to the whole of the above forests and fields and pay 2 million won per year to F and the victim, etc. through G.

(c) above, however,.