A. The Defendant is not the owner of another person, but the wall owned by the Defendant is inconsistent with the mistake of facts.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that it erred and convicted the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (70,000 won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, a prop, roof, outer wall, basic structure, etc. necessary to keep the safety or appearance of a building in an aggregate building is not the object of sectional ownership, but the part which is provided for the public use of all or part of sectional owners, and whether the outer wall constituting the framework of the building is provided for the public use of all or part of sectional owners, or whether it is necessary for maintaining the safety or appearance of the whole building.

(See) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court at the lower court on April 28, 2011 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da12163, Apr. 28, 201), the part that was destroyed by the Defendant is part of the outer wall surrounding the commercial building of the instant building C, and that was, in light of the structure and use relationship of the building, necessary to maintain the safety and exterior of the said building, can be recognized as the part that was provided for the public use of the building owners, i.e., the part that was owned by the Defendant, not the sole ownership of the Defendant, but the part that was owned by the sectional owners. Therefore

B. The fact that there was no particular criminal record on the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and that there was no significant change in the safety or appearance of a building, etc. is favorable to the defendant, but the construction has been forcibly executed and the mistake has not been admitted despite the removal of sectional owners.