Even if the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense against infringement of property rights or is recognized that there is a legitimate defense situation, illegality or responsibility should be avoided.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

2. Determination:

A. 1) In recognizing the criminal intent of the damage of property, the relevant legal doctrine does not necessarily have to have a planned intent of the damage or actively wish to damage the property, but there is a perception of the loss of the utility of the property against the owner’s will.

In this context, the term "conscising the utility of property" includes not only converting the thing into a state where it cannot be used for its original purpose, but also converting it into a state where it cannot be used (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Do2701, Dec. 7, 1993; 2009Do182, Mar. 12, 2009, etc.). 2) In order to establish a legitimate defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method, and method of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of infringement, and the kind of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10321, Aug. 21, 2008).