재물손괴
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. In light of the gist of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles), the criminal intent of the Defendant’s damage is recognized in light of the official document and the contents of consultation among the Defendant, the owner of a building, and the victim J-limited company (hereinafter “victim company”).
2. Determination
A. At around 20:10 on June 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) removed the glass windows installed by the victim company on the corridor on the eightth floor of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building (hereinafter “instant glass windows”) without the consent of the victim company, thereby damaging the glass windows equivalent to KRW 9.3 million at the market price owned by the victim company.
B. As to the facts charged in this case, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant was aware that he would have obtained an implied consent from the building owner G to remove the glass of this case, or at least was entitled to remove the glass of this case under the lease agreement with G, and that the removal of the glass of this case was conducted, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant committed an act indicated in the facts charged with the intent to damage the glass of this case with the knowledge that it was owned by the victim company, even though it
C. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court and the trial court: (i) the location of the instant glass window is located in the boundary between the leased part and the leased part of the Defendant; and (ii) the Defendant removed the instant glass window and installed the entrance, the said entrance would go through the leased part of the victim company; and (iii) the Defendant agreed on the removal of the glass window with the victim company through G; and (iv) the lessor on June 21, 2015 and the victim company on June 16, 2015, while the agreement was not reached, were planned to install the entrance on June 16, 2015 to prevent further damage.