The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant is not guilty of having ordered C to destroy crops. The defendant is not guilty of facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of factual misunderstanding, stated the following circumstances: (i) (i) a driver C went to the Defendant’s vehicle on May 22, 2016; (ii) a driver sent agricultural products to the Defendant; (iii) the Defendant was driving the vehicle at the time and place of criminal fact in the investigative agency, with his/her own interest; (iii) the vehicle of the Defendant was damaged by the Defendant’s vehicle located in the victim’s field according to on on-site photographs (Evidence No. 37, 117-18, and 128), and (ii) the agricultural products cultivated in the victim’s field were damaged by the vehicle (Evidence No. 5-7, page 80-82, the evidence record No. 5-7, page No. 80-82); and (iv) I and K, a village resident, and at the same time and place in the investigative agency

Comprehensively taking account of the statement (74-75 pages of the evidence record), the fact that the defendant instigated a driver C to take crops cultivated by the victim and damage the land.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. Although there are circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the amount of damage to the judgment on the wrongful argument of sentencing is minor, and that the Defendant’s health is not good old, the crime of this case is committed on the grounds that the Defendant had his driver take crops located in the dry field of the victim and damaged crops owned by the victim on the ground that the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s dry field from running across the Defendant’s house. The Defendant again committed the crime of this case without any reflection despite having already committed the crime of aiding and abetting property damage with the same content, and that the Defendant again committed the crime of this case without any reflection, and that the Defendant agreed with the victim or restored the damage until the Defendant was in the first instance.