A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to find a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles - the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant damaged the knives fence installed in the knives of this case (hereinafter “the fence of this case”) and even though the defendant's act did not have the owner's constructive consent, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, found the following circumstances: (i) the fence of this case was installed in the public site of Ba, and thus, in order to remove it or move its location, the consent was obtained from the owners of Bara to remove it; (ii) the Defendant, who newly built Ba in common with the Defendant, owned most of them; and (iii) the Defendant was in charge of the affairs such as the sale and management of Dora after the construction of Dora in common with J, and thus, it seems likely that the Defendant would have obtained implied or comprehensive consent from J with regard to the removal, etc. of Dora; (iii) the Defendant removed the fence of this case for repair of neighboring buildings; and (iv) the fence of this case was built again after changing its location for Dora’s construction; and (iii) the Defendant did not raise any damage against Dora’s will by misunderstanding D as its ownership and filing a complaint against the Defendant’s property damage.

The intention to damage or damage it.