Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

C The representative of the management body of the D shop in Bupyeong-si, Defendant B, Defendant E (hereinafter “E”), Defendant E is the chief executive officer of the management office of the D company E (hereinafter “E”), and the limited liability company F (hereinafter “F”) is a company that concludes a management consignment agreement with G Co., Ltd., the executor of the D shop, setting the contract period from March 1, 2018 to February 29, 2020, and executes the management consignment agreement.

Defendant

C In order to show F, the existing controlled entity of D commercial buildings, as a new controlled entity, at the management office, the D commercial building management body claimed that the D commercial building management body selected E, approximately 50 persons, including the sectional owners of D commercial buildings, were moved to the management office possessed by F on November 13, 2018, and the victim D commercial building co-owned by F on the fourth floor of D commercial buildings, was removed on November 13, 2018.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to damage the victims' property.

In the facts charged, the part of "the victim F who was purchased and installed by the victim F, and the victim D shop owners, who were co-owned by the victim F, are removed."

However, the “domination” appears to mean the number chain separately installed from the entrance knife (the witness H refers to the “gate knife” h), and the Defendants only changed the number of the number knife, but did not remove it.

In addition, as Defendant C purchased and possessed, it cannot be the object of the crime of destruction because it cannot be said to be another person’s property, and the Defendants’ removal does not appear to have been made (the witness H stated in the facts charged that the overlap installed by the Defendants was removed by himself). The object of the crime of destruction as indicated in the facts charged is the constituent part of the entrance, and the Defendants’ act appears to be an act detrimental to the utility of the entrance as a whole. Thus, the part as indicated in the judgment is reduced.