재물손괴
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In full view of the following facts: (a) at the time when the Defendant leased a swine farm from the victim, the instant cattle shed was a facility to raise the pigs; and (b) the Defendant replaced the instant cattle shed facility to the facilities to raise the pigs without the victim’s explicit consent; and (c) the replacement of the said facilities makes it impossible for the instant cattle shed to raise fats, which are the existing functions of the instant cattle shed; and (d) the Defendant dismantled the breeding of fats owned by the victim with the intent to commit property damage.
Unlike this, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the criminal intent of causing property damage, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles
2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant leased the victim D’s swine farm owned by the victim C at the time of strike.
On March 2013, the Defendant arbitrarily dismantled and damaged 30 deliverys, 119 air trusses, and 149 automatic payers, etc. at the market price, which are owned by the victim and used to raise fat pigs, other than mother pigs, installed in the above farm.
3. The lower court’s judgment: (a) accepted two remaining livestock penss before altering a swine farm consisting of three livestock penss from the victim on November 30, 2010 (in accordance with the agreement, February 10, 2009) that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; (b) the Defendant received two remaining livestock farms from the victim before altering the said livestock farm; (c) there seems to be no circumstance that the Defendant obtained explicit approval from the victim; (d) the victim was aware of the repair of two livestock pens, and (e) the victim did not raise any objection against it; and (b) the victim remodeled the livestock farm at issue of the instant case on October 2013.