The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) had a right to cultivate land of 3,960 square meters (1,200 square meters) located in Nam-gun, Sungsung-gun, etc. (hereinafter “the dry field of this case”); and (b) had the victim use the dry field.

The victim agreed to return the above dry field to the defendant at any time at the request of the defendant, and the defendant, after the victim harvested turf, failed to do so, so the court below found the defendant guilty of mistake of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 1,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court on the assertion of facts, the Defendant: (a) leased the dry field of this case from E, etc., the owner of the dry field of this case on or around December 2002; (b) the victim transferred the dry field from the Defendant to the Defendant and returned the dry field to the Defendant at the Defendant’s request; (c) the Defendant returned the above dry field to the Defendant on December 21, 2012, upon the Defendant’s return of the dry field from the damaged party, was the agreement that the lease contract for the dry field was terminated between the Defendant and E on December 21, 2012, (iv) the Defendant leased the above dry field to the victim; and (v) the victim cultivated the dry field up until the time when the crime of this case occurred by planting the dry field of this case; and (v) the Defendant recovered the dry field of this case on August 2014, 201 to the entire dry field of this case.

In full view of the above facts of recognition, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant destroyed the victim's spawn right to the dry field of this case without having a legitimate cultivation right to the dry field of this case, and therefore, the defendant's above person is the defendant.