재물손괴교사
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the defendants' acts do not constitute legitimate acts, and thus, it cannot be ruled out that there is no possibility that they would be favorable status in dispute between the management body of the building C and the D Committee, or that they were conducted for the purpose of preventing the activities of the D Committee, and therefore, the legitimacy of the purpose of the appeal cannot be recognized in a justifiable act. The defendants' act of cutting off CCTV's wire constitutes the management of the section for common use of the building as well as there is no ground to view that the acts of the defendants were included in the management of the above section for common use, the method of the defendants' choice is difficult to be deemed as necessary, and there is no urgent need for the defendants' acts to be consulted with the D Committee, and thus,
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is the secretary general of the management body of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C (hereinafter “the management body of this case”), and Defendant B is the person working as the director of the facilities division of the management body of this case, and the victim D Committee was under dispute as a operational problem with the management body of this case.
Defendant
A, around 17:30 on May 28, 2018, directed B to cut off the wire of CCTV camera installed in the 9th floor corridor of the above building by the victim, and caused Defendant B to cut off the wire of the above CCTV camera that is owned by the victim with the market value of KRW 5.70,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “the CCTV of this case”) and damage the victim’s property by using the construction section without delay. Defendant B, as seen above, cut off the two wire of the CCTV camera owned by the victim, thereby impairing its utility.
B. The lower court’s determination is based on the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court.