A. In the idea that the victim's current locking device is not well operated, the defendant is removed from the previous locking device to the dryp, and only damaged the victim's book.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below found that the defendant alleged the above purport at the court below, and found that the crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the defendant damages or conceals another's property or impairs its utility by other means. Here, the crime of causing damage to the utility of property refers, in fact or by appraisal, to make the property in a state where it is impossible to use it for its original original purpose, and it includes temporary conversion into a state where it is not possible to use it. The court below acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, and did not attach again after removing the lock lock lock device of this case without the victim's consent. In other words, the defendant did not attach again, without the victim's consent, reported that the defendant was removed from the lock lock lock lock device of this case. After the dispute, the victim was sent to the police officer without using the lock lock lock device of the defendant's removal. According to this, the defendant at the time of this case's decision that the defendant could be deemed to have had the original purpose of temporary removal of the lock lock.

In this context, the locking device is removed for the reason that it does not work, even though the locking device does not work properly.