In light of the fact that the Defendant, by mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, has set the CCTV as a type, but since other CCTVs than CCTVs installed by the Defendant were operated normally, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant would impair the utility of CCTVs. The Defendant had concerns over the leakage of personal information, and there was no intention to damage the CCTV on the ground that he had no intention to damage the CCTVs.

In addition, the illegality of the defendant's act falls under self-defense, legitimate act or necessity of necessity is excluded.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the 500,000 won suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The crime of destroying and damaging the CCTV in this case is established when the crime of destroying and damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is committed in cases where the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or the utility thereof is harmed by any other means. Here, the term “the utility of the property” means, in fact or in appraisal, making the property in a state in which it is not possible to provide it for the original purpose of use, and includes temporarily making the property unusable (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do18807, Jul. 24, 2018) (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do1807, Jul. 24, 2018). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, (i) the CCTV in this case is intended to prevent crimes