The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal is recognized to have arbitrarily removed trees planted on the land owned by the victim E, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal principles and erroneous determination of facts.

2. Determination

A. On December 5, 201, the Defendant, as the D representative director of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., destroyed and damaged booming trees in the market price, such as large-scale 2, large-scale 2, large-scale 20, large-scale 20, and large-scale 20, large-scale 20, etc. (hereinafter “instant trees”) on the land owned by the victim E while carrying out the retaining wall construction work in the building site for a house owned by an employee of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nety”).

B. According to the witness E’s legal statement, etc., the court below found the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, including witness I’s legal statement, (i) the defendant confirmed that the trees of this case were planted in the vicinity of the land owned by E and the land owned by NA, and (ii) the defendant confirmed that the trees of this case were planted in the vicinity of the boundary of the land owned by E and around the boundary of the house owned by E; (iii) on the site of K, K is designated a place to transplant the trees of this case to E; and (iv) on the ground that the defendant did not cooperate with the E in the construction of the land of this case, the defendant filed a report on the following facts and circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, such as the witness I’s legal statement, etc.