A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The instant standing signboard was not only on the ground of Macheon-si F (on the current status) but also on the site where the ownership of the Defendant was transferred to the Defendant according to a sales contract with the father of the victim. The main purpose of the instant standing signboard was to advertise singing rather than Maur, and its ownership was included in the subject matter of the said sales contract and transferred to the Defendant’s ownership.

2) The Defendant transferred the ownership of the instant standing signboards to himself.

I think that there was no intention to damage the property.

3) Since the victim understood the removal of the instant standing signboard, the crime of damaging property is not established.

4) Nevertheless, the lower court, which found the Defendant guilty on a different premise, erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the aforementioned facts were identical to the assertion of mistake in fact, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion by clearly explaining the decision in detail.

On October 29, 2012, the day of the instant case, the victim sent an objection to the removal of the instant standing signboard in currency with the Defendant’s and Defendant’s wife on October 30, 2012, as follows: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; (b) the victim was asked the Defendant’s parents to ask the Defendant for the removal of the instant standing signboard; (c) the victim was not divided by a fluorcule with respect to the instant standing signboard at the time of the instant sales contract; and (d) the victim did not raise an objection to the removal of the instant standing signboard on October 30, 2012.

As to this, the defendant's side stated that "if the building was sold to the victim, she shall be the victim's (the defendant) on the land;

If the arms have taken place, it will be.