Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

At around 09:00 on November 7, 2017, the Defendant: (a) paid a way to part of the past land that the victim D used as a stone cemetery in North Korea-gun B and C, and (b) destroyed the land and turd, etc. that were depthd part of the above land once by using the turf, etc. using the turf; (c) again, damaged the forest part of the forest land in North Korea-gun E before the victim owned by the victim; and (d) subsequently, damaged the forest by the aforementioned method.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the property worth approximately KRW 540,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, F and G;

1. A report on occurrence, internal investigation report, field photograph, forest register, forest land register, each aerial photography register, each aerial photography, each aerial photography's land register, cadastral map copy, cadastral map copy, cadastral survey result, cadastral survey performance map, land construction status, cadastral survey executor, and estimate [the defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the defendant's work place is not the victim's land but the part that was the original way to be the victim's land. However, the defendant's work place is not the victim's land in light of the above evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court. In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court and duly adopted and investigated by the court are clear that the defendant's work against the cirs news was the victim's land when comprehensively taking into account the witness's testimony and aerial photography, etc., at the time, the cirratian article was not under the victim's cirrology of South Korea, but at the time, the defendant's work at the same time did not have any ground on the road of the defendant.

Even if so, there was an oral agreement between the defendant and the defendant before 30 years.

argument that such an agreement had been reached, even if so;

Even if it is not limited to the victim who is the land owner, the damage and the intention of the defendant shall be sufficiently confirmed, taking into account the fact that the tree roots has been flickly flicked and has not been flickly flicked.