At around 10:00 on February 2, 2019, the Defendant: (a) requested a person who was aware of the name of the Defendant at the above construction site; and (b) required the removal of the fix card No. 4 (140,000 won) and CCTV No. 470,000 won (470,000 won) stating that “The building will be in the exercise of the right of retention; and (c) damaged the property owned by the said victim.

2. As to the instant case D (hereinafter “auction case”), the Defendant asserted that he/she acquired ownership of the instant building, etc. by fully paying the sale price on December 26, 2018, upon receiving a decision to permit the sale of the studio building, etc. as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant building”).

However, in the event that the Defendant visited the building of this case immediately after that, there was no four flag cards and one CCTV (hereinafter “instant flag cards, etc.”) indicated in the facts charged.

The Defendant discovered the instant pl cards, etc. is on February 2, 2019 (the date stated in the facts of prosecution) after the lapse of the reference, and the Defendant only removed the instant pl cards in order to prevent the Defendant from interfering with the Defendant’s exercise of ownership over the instant building.

Meanwhile, it cannot be said that the victim had a lien on the instant building.

In the end, the defendant's act does not constitute the elements of the crime of causing property damage, or at least the illegality is excluded as it constitutes a self-help act or a legitimate act.

3. Judgment on the assertion that the crime of destroying and damaging property does not constitute the elements of the crime

A. The crime of causing property damage by relevant legal doctrine is destroyed or concealed by the special media records such as another person’s property, documents, or electronic records.