2. The crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or when the utility thereof is harmed by other means. Here, the term "procing the utility of the property" means making the property in a state where it is virtually impossible to provide it for its original purpose of use due to its appraisal, and includes temporarily making the property in a state where it cannot be used.

In particular, whether an act of writing on the wall surface of a structure or an act of throwing down a notice or garbage constitutes an act of harming the utility of the structure should be determined according to social norms by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the purpose and function of the structure in question, the impact of the act on lighting, ventilation, and lighting of the structure, the influence of the act on the lighting, ventilation, lighting, etc. of the structure, the degree of harm to the aesthetic view of the structure, inconvenience or resistance that the building users feel, expenses incurred in such acts, the purpose and continuity of the act, and the situation at the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2590 Decided June 28, 2007). We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

Examining the circumstances revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the fact that F Co., Ltd. holding office by the Defendant is the fact that the Defendant indicated the “right of retention” on the outer wall and the windows of the instant loan No. 101 using a roman presses in the process of exercising the right of retention by possessing No. 101 of the instant loan, can be acknowledged.

However, the use of the loan of this case is limited to the above indication.