2. Determination

A. On February 19, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 22:47 on February 19, 2016, placed two posts posted in the elevator at the management office at the request of the victim C (hereinafter “instant posts”) in the elevator B B (hereinafter “instant apartment”) at around 206, an elevator at the request of the victim C; and (b) thereby undermining the usefulness of the property owned by the victim.

B. The lower court’s judgment determined as follows, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the record: (i) the instant notice is owned by the representative meeting of apartment occupants, which is not owned by the victim C, by keeping the original at the second apartment management office and posting a copy thereof; and (ii) the management authority of the apartment is owned by the managing body of the apartment.

According to D’s legal statement, there was a dispute between the representatives at the meeting of the occupants of apartment buildings at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, and there was a practice such as demanding the occupants to make a public announcement of the notice for each other’s necessity and taking the notice publicly announced at the request of other residents whenever necessary. Accordingly, D, the manager of the management affairs, without any particular objection, allowed the residents to take measures and again post a copy of the notice in the absence of special circumstances. <3> At the time of the instant case, D’s management affairs office, in the court of the original instance, was performing its duties by allowing them to take measures and posting a copy of the notice in the absence of special circumstances.

The defendant's telephone was approved, and then a copy of the notice was made again.