Even if the defendant's act constitutes a crime of damage, it is justified as a legitimate act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal as to the amendment of the indictment, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that “the repair cost of KRW 990,000” in the facts charged in the instant case was “in the market below” and this court permitted the amendment, but it cannot be deemed that the subject of the judgment was modified, and thus, the judgment of the court below is not reversed ex officio.

B. 1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the ground that, in full view of the following circumstances, E (the owner of the instant pents) and F (the installation of the instant pents upon the request of the said E) as well as the statements made by the investigative agency and the lower court are consistent, credibility in the statement is recognized, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the grounds that the Defendant destroyed the instant pents.

2) The following circumstances, i.e., the fact that the court below and the trial of the party were lawfully adopted and examined, including the situation presented by the court below and the result of on-site inspection of the party deliberation, and the following circumstances, i.e., the fact that the pents of this case were clearly damaged (a damage inflicted upon the utility or utility of the damaged object, which cannot be used for its original purpose of use.