A. With respect to the damage of property among the facts charged of this case, the wall of this case cannot be deemed as another person's property, and even if otherwise, the wall of this case was affected by the boundary of the land owned by the defendant, and there was the victim's consent to the removal, so even if the removal of the wall of this case was dismissed as it did not constitute a crime of damage or constitutes the lawful exercise of property right, the court below convicted the above facts charged. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Of the facts charged in this case, the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense for the protection of himself from an improper attack, and the special assault constitutes a defendant's intent to commit a special assault, but the court below found the defendant guilty of each of the above facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination on the damage of property among the facts charged in the instant case (1) The victim E was the victim of the crime and continued to reside from the time of purchase in 1988 by the investigative agency to the trial of the party. The instant wall and the victim’s house gate columns, etc. connected thereto were already installed on the boundary with the adjacent land (Ulsan Jung-gu C) at the time of the commencement of residence. Before the Defendant raised an objection, the instant fence was jointly owned by the neighbor.

The court stated to the effect that the victim has been considered to have been at all and there was no problem about the ownership relationship, etc., and that the victim has been managed by himself, etc. of the wall of this case. The court below sold the land and the house above C to the defendant.

N had a wall of this case even at the time of purchase of the above land around June 2009, and the previous owner.