A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant’s act of spawning the State-owned property on the front door owned by the victim alone does not constitute damage, and it does not constitute an act of damaging the utility of the spawn.

(2) In relation to the issue of intimidation, even if the Defendant was prone to the victim’s house before the victim’s house, it cannot be viewed as a threat of harm and injury to the victim, and it does not constitute intimidation.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable even if the Defendant was found guilty of an unreasonable sentencing decision.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of destroying and damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the crime of destroying and damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act causes damage to the utility of the property by destroying or concealing the property of another person or by other means. Here, the term "harming the utility of the property" refers to making the property in a state in which it is practically impossible to provide it for its original purpose due to appraisal, and it also includes making the property unusable temporarily (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2590, Jun. 28, 2007). In this case, health stand in light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the following circumstances revealed by the court below, namely, (1) the defendant spreads the national flag to the front door of the victim in order to express the complaint caused by noise between the victim and the victim, and (2) the situation that the use of the ice was hindered due to the smell, etc., and (3) the victim and the ice after cleaning can be removed.