The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, the Defendant knew that he was the boundary of the land of this case and the forest of K, which is the ownership of the E clan, and falsely perceived that he was the ownership of the bamboo part of the land of this case according to the direction of the clan, and thus, he did not have any awareness or intention to damage the bamboo part of the land of this case owned by the victim D.

In the statement of reasons for appeal, the defendant asserted that the Defendant’s bes, he was in K in Kim Jong-si, the possession of the clan, and that it was not planted on the land of this case. However, it is recognized that the Defendant was planted on May 21, 2018 and that the bes that it was planted on the land of this case on May 21, 2018 after being surveyed outside the court, and on May 21, 2018 at the second trial date of the trial of this case, the above assertion is not judged separately.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, found that the Defendant was aware of the fact that, at the time of cutting off the bamboo on the instant land, it would damage the bamboo owned by another person.

Since it is reasonable to see that the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

1) On October 28, 1967, on the instant land, GH ownership or on the instant land: (a) on October 28, 1967, the registration of the creation of superficies, the scope of which was full of the land, and the duration of which was permanently registered, was completed with respect to superficies on the instant land.

On the other hand, the victim owns the JJ in Kim Jong-si, adjacent to the land of this case.

2) The victim stated in the police that "the defendant damaged the bamboo that the victim was recovered from the land of this case by planting it on the land of this case," and the judgment of the court below.