재물손괴
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the above building can be provided for residence, which is its original purpose of use, or can be used for other purpose, such as a warehouse, at the time when the defendant removes the building as stated in the facts charged as the victim’s ownership (hereinafter “instant building”), and thus, it constitutes property worth or utility, which is the object of the crime of causing property damage.
In addition, the defendant had no understanding or consent on the removal of the victim at the time of the removal of the building of this case, and the defendant's intention to remove the building of this case is recognized as against the victim's will without confirming the victim's intention.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that the above building had utility or utility as property at the time of removing the building of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the said building had utility or utility as property at the time of the removal of the instant building, and there was no other evidence to prove otherwise, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant was scheduled to remove the building at the time of the removal of the instant building; (b) both the owner C et al. moved to a different place; and (c) all electricity, gas, etc. inside the building could not be used for residential purposes; (d) there was no evidence to deem that C et al. exercised ownership of the said building; and (e) the construction of accommodation was commenced on the site after the removal of the instant building; and (e) there was no evidence to prove otherwise.
B. First of all, as to whether the instant building is the object of the crime of causing property damage.