The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors, misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the fence and wire network in this case, which were owned by the Defendant’s referring, belongs to the ownership of the Defendant’s referring as a substitute for the fence and wire network, and is merely a accessory or accessory to the land owned by the Defendant. As such, the fence and wire network in this case are owned by the Defendant.

In addition, since the fences and hardware of this case still maintain their original functions and roles, it is also unreasonable to view that the fences and hardware of this case were damaged.

2. Determination

A. Although the lower court also asserted the same purport as that of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion for the following reasons, and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case.

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the fences and wire nets of this case are installed on the land owned by the defendant, and they are attached to and attached to the above land, and therefore they are owned by the defendant. However, according to each evidence of the judgment, it can be recognized that the fences and wire nets of this case are not attached to the land so that they cannot be separated without causing any damage or excessive expenses. Thus, they are not attached to the land of this case, and the accessories are not attached to the land of this case, and they are attached to other things owned by the owner of the goods for their commercial use (Article 100 (1) of the Civil Act, and Article 100 (1) of the Civil Act, and the fences and wire nets of this case cannot be attached to the land owned by the defendant, which is owned by the victim.

In addition, the Defendant and the defense counsel installed the fences and wire network of this case after removing the fences installed by the above E on the existing roads with the consent of the victim’s father E on April 2015, when the victim uses the land owned by E as a road for the restaurant business of the victim. Thus, the fences and wire network of this case are installed.