A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant changed the direction of CCTV shooting as stated in the facts charged or attached a hearing tape before siren, but did not destroy CCTV itself.

CCTV shall not be deemed damaged due to the act of a defendant.

2) The victim, without the consent of the residents, installed CCTV in the corridor, which is the section for common use of the Ba, including the Defendant.

The defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act, since the defendant did not change or take photographs of CCTV to prevent him/her from taking photographs without permission.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the assertion that the crime of damage to property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act does not constitute damage under the Criminal Act, it is established when the crime of damage to property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act damages or damages its utility by any other means. Here, the term "damage to the utility of property" actually means making the property in a state where it is impossible to provide it for its original purpose due to an appraisal, and includes making the property in a state where it cannot be temporarily used (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2590, Jun. 28, 2007).

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s act constitutes the crime of destroying property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act, since the Defendant temporarily interrupted the function of CCTV photographing that the injured party intended to take by himself by preventing the injured party from altering or photographing CCTV shooting direction installed by the victim.

A) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant resided in the building B, F, and the victim in each of the above building C, and had a dispute arising from noise between floors.