특수재물손괴
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
The main point of the grounds for appeal is the concrete structure on the ground of 3.27 square meters on the part inside the ship connecting each point of A, B, and D among the building on the ground B in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as "the building in this case") with the indication of the attached drawing among the buildings on the ground B (hereinafter referred to as "the building in this case").
As part of the outer wall of the building of this case, the exterior is different, and the inside is not the co-ownership of the owners of the building of this case, such as victim D, etc., but the ownership of the nameless boxes illegally attached the structure of this case.
The defendant did not have the intention to avoid the intention of damage.
Even if the defendant's act constitutes a crime of destruction, the amount of damage is not KRW 4,965,400.
The brue, brutry, drypry, insertion, etc. used for the removal of the structure of this case which is dangerous to the misunderstanding of legal principles is not dangerous objects.
The removal of the structure by the defendant of the act of political party constitutes a justifiable act.
The defendant's act of removal by mistake was not a crime, and there was a justifiable reason for the mistake.
The punishment of the lower court (five million won in penalty) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
Judgment
Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, we examined the following facts: at the trial of the court, the prosecutor: “The owner is the owner; the victim P is the owner of the first floor Q Q of the instant building; the victim L is the owner of the first floor of the instant building; the victim T is the owner of the second floor U UV of the instant building; the victim “the victim” of the fourth class of the instant building; and the victim “the victim” of the fourth class of the instant building was “victim D”; and the victim “the victim” of the instant structure of the instant building of the instant case of the instant case of the first class 12, 14, 15, and 16, the victim was requested to amend the amendment to the effect that “the instant structure owned by the victim” was “the structure of the instant building owned by the victims, which is the common part of the instant building owned by the victims.” This is subject to the judgment by the court.