The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though he did not know about the field of G and the boundary of the said forest, and did not have any intention of larceny, it was found that the lower court convicted of this part of the facts charged, even though he did not know about it, because the access road for vehicle traffic was narrow, due to the narrow access road for vehicle traffic, was collected.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (five months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the assertion of mistake of facts in the record: ① the Defendant reclaimed land prior to several years at the request of G prior to H (hereinafter “G’s land”); ② collected and sold earth and sand in return for the request; ② the aforementioned C forest is adjacent to the north of G’s land as the victim D and E’s co-ownership; ③ the Defendant did not take appropriate measures such as gathering of earth and sand, despite the fact that the said forest land is adjacent to G’s land and is less than other places, the Defendant did not take appropriate measures such as gathering of earth and sand from around December 12, 2012 to February 16, 2013; ④ the Defendant did not take appropriate measures to confirm the boundary of the land from the above forest to the point of gathering earth and sand from the point of view of not taking proper measures such as gathering earth and sand from the point of view of the fact that the forest was adjacent to G’s land, ⑤ the fact that the Defendant did not take proper measures such as removing the land from the above land’s land category and sand.