The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

(M) The Defendant did not have any intention to destroy the instant tree on the following grounds, etc.

Since the ownership of the land planted by the instant tree was transferred to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation by consultation, the ownership of the tree appurtenant to the land was also transferred to the said Corporation, and the instant tree is not subject to compensation for obstacles.

The Defendant did not know that the instant tree was owned by a third party while doing so according to the direction of the said Gyeonggi-do City Corporation and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, and did not know that the victim was proceeding with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation for claiming compensation for pine trees.

This case's tree is merely a miscellaneous level at the time, and it was not possible to recognize the trees requiring compensation.

Judgment

The defendant and defense counsel also asserted the same purport in the court below, and the court below rejected the defendant's argument and found the defendant guilty in the facts charged while explaining the judgment on "the judgment on the defendant and defense counsel's argument" in the reasoning of the judgment

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is closely compared with evidence and examined, and the defendant was notified by the Korea Land Corporation of the conditions to perform the construction work after confirming the compensation relationship at the work site (Evidence Nos. 1 & 70). Thus, the defendant was obligated to separately confirm the compensation relationship of the instant trees, and ② The compensation details of the instant land did not include the compensation for the instant trees (Evidence Nos. 1 and 86 pages), and the form in which the instant trees were planted at the time and the land compensation circumstances as seen above, etc. do not seem to have been naturally transferred to the Korea Land Corporation along with the ownership of the instant land, and ③ there were circumstances in which the victim harvested the negligence from the instant trees, as well as the situation in which the victim harvested the fruits from the instant trees.