A. In fact, the locking device of this case was not owned by the victim, but did not have the intent to damage the locking device to the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The misunderstanding of legal principles is clearly erroneous for the victim, who is not authorized to perform the duties of the headquarters C branch of the Vietnam War Veterans Association in the Republic of Korea, and who installed the locking system in the C branch office.

Therefore, the illegality of the defendant's act of removing the above locking devices and entering the office is justified because it constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the amount of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted that the aforementioned grounds of appeal are identical to the assertion of mistake of facts.

As to this, the court below rejected the defendant's above assertion by admitting the guilty guilty of the facts charged in this case after compiling the evidence as stated in its judgment.

In this regard, the following circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, which may be recognized by the court below, (1) the victim had installed the locking device of this case:

In making a statement, the installation cost also is specified to the extent of 200,000 won (Evidence No. 11 page of the evidence record), ② the Defendant also recognized that the locking device was installed by the victim of the instant locking device in its consistent manner from the investigation stage to the depth of the party at the investigation stage, ③ The public notice note attached to C branch office immediately after the victim installed the locking device of the instant case was included in the contents on the subject of the entrance seal and the prohibition of unauthorized destruction of locking device (Evidence No. 15, 16 pages of the evidence record).