The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. No person prosecuted shall damage or withering bamboo within a forest without justifiable grounds;

However, in 2014, the Defendant damaged 43 weeks of standing timber planted at the same place on the ground that it could interfere with the cultivation of agricultural products in the area of 730 square meters of land in the Seosung-gu Daejeon Pream Zone, Daejeon, Daejeon, and caused the above standing timber to be blighted.

As above, the Defendant damaged or killed standing timber in a forest without justifiable grounds.

2. Determination

A. The defendant and his defense counsel caused the defendant to wither standing timber damaged by farmland upon the defendant's implied permission of the representative E of the D clan, who owns forest land. Thus, there was a justifiable reason.

The argument is asserted.

(b) In full view of the witness F and E’s respective legal statements, two copies of the examination- submitted photographs, and the fact that the following facts are recognized:

Daejeon Seosung-gu C Forest land of 730 square meters (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) is owned by D clans, and E is the representative of the same clan.

The Defendant was a farmer in the field abutting on the instant forest land.

The defendant has increased to E due to the forest land of this case, and the defect that E is discovered by the defendant, and the present is to be less.

1. The term “assumed.”

Of the forest land of this case, the Defendant blighted the 43th century of standing timber located within the boundary of the paddy field.

The height of standing timber in the forest of this case was about 10-12 meters, and the distance from the forest of this case to the rice that the Defendant cultivated was 8 meters.

On February 1, 2016, following the Defendant’s 43 main tree with the Defendant’s 43 main tree bamboo, there existed a sea disaster caused by the instant forest trees in the said field.

(c)

In other words, the following circumstances revealed by the Defendant comprehensively considering the above facts of recognition, namely, the fact that the Defendant dead only standing timber located within the boundary of the rice field among the forest land in this case, and that the discussion would have been more serious than February 1, 2016 before the Defendant kills standing timber.