The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

A. Inasmuch as, based on the section originally agreed on with respect to the cutting section of the fence owned by the victim E of misunderstanding of facts, if the fence was cut down, the damage would be greater to the victim, and thus, cut the fence based on the adjoining part so that it could be recycled at a minimum cost at the time of reconstruction of the fence, there was intention to damage to the defendant.

It is difficult to see that the fence's utility has been impaired.

B. The Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act in that the victim planned to remove a part of the fence in accordance with the boundary determination, and the removal of the fence was unnecessary, the part over the road was actually removed, the part over the fence was not cut off, and there was no other method or means in addition to cutting the fence, and it was considered in mutual interest.

2. Determination

A. On the ground of appeal, the crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when it damages or conceals another person's property or damages its utility by other means. Here, the term "damage to the utility of property" means, in fact or by appraisal, converting the property into a state where it is impossible to provide it for the original purpose of use, and it also includes making the property in a state where it cannot be used temporarily (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2590, Jun. 28, 2007). Thus, it is reasonable to view that cutting the fence of the victim in this case as an act of creating a state where the fence with the function of indicating the boundary of the land owned by the victim cannot be provided for its original purpose of use even if a plan to re-establish it was planned in the future.

On the other hand:

B. As seen in the judgment of authority, the Defendant.