B opened a door with changing the password of the gate, which caused damage to the electronic gate by obtaining permission from the lessor on the condition of reinstatement.

The former fishing village is an act that is not owned by another person, which is the object of the crime of damage to property, or is merely an act that can be accepted under the social norms by destroying part of the leased apartment for considerable reasons.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) the judgment was based on the title “determination of the Defendant’s assertion” in detail.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (a) the victim leased the instant apartment on February 21, 2017; (b) the victim moved to the said apartment on February 21, 2017 and completed the move-in report; (c) the Defendant appears to have lived with the address and the instant apartment without completing the move-in report; and (d) the object of the crime of damage is limited to the ownership of another person; (b) it does not constitute one’s own property; (c) it does not constitute one’s own property, regardless of whether it was occupied by another person or under his own possession (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do290, Dec. 26, 1984); and (d) the circumstance that the Defendant was living with the victim immediately before the instant apartment or was responsible for monthly rent and management expenses, etc. with the victim cannot be deemed to have been owned by the Defendant.