The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, at the time when the Defendant was awarded a successful bid for the instant forest by auction, the injured party did not have a tree tree nursery at the time of planting landscape trees, and even if so, there was a tree tree nursery.

However, since the victim did not have a pre-auction method, and the defendant acquired the ownership of a food tree nursery that has formed a part of land through an auction, it cannot be viewed as the property owned by the victim.

2) The unfair sentencing sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor 1), even though the defendant damaged approximately KRW 20 million in total of the market price, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part on the ground that the quantity and market price of food seedlings cannot be recognized, there is an error of mistake in the fact-finding.

2) The unfair sentencing sentence of the lower court is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. On November 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) had been awarded a bid of 32,974m2 in Seosan-si D forest owned by C around November 17, 201 as a person engaging in a landscape business; and (b) had been willing to engage in landscape gardening business by planting cirous trees, such as mountain frisome trees, in the said forest.

On May 2015, the Defendant arbitrarily cut approximately KRW 20,000 of the market value of 20 million owned by the victim E, which was considered by the victim E to receive the above forest and fields leased from the above C in the above forest and fields around May 2015, and arbitrarily cut up approximately KRW 20,000 in the market value.

3. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Determination of the assertion that the victim's planting of the tree seedlings was in conformity with the land of this case, and regardless of whether there is a method to name the tree trees, the trees planted on the land by the right to lease of the land are owned by the planting person and not in conformity with the land (Supreme Court Decisions 80Do1874 Decided September 30, 1980; 80Do1874 Decided September 30, 199).