재물손괴
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)
A. As to the damage of property (the Defendants), the small-scale rooftops installed are exclusive spaces of the Defendants, and the rail is removed for the purpose of increasing the utility of the highest floor, and the Defendants’ ownership is planned to be acquired through conversion for sale in the future. Therefore, there was no intention of damage to the Defendants.
Although it is proper to cut off arbitrarily a V and a width fixed on a rail and remove a rail, there is no fact that cut a rail.
B. As to the violation of the Housing Act (Defendant B), the instant PIT room had been excavated from the original hole, and the Defendant did not have the wall of the PIT room.
B. The walls of the instant PIT room are not bearing walls. Therefore, a housing violation based on the premise that it is a bearing wall is not established.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal
A. As to the damage to property, the Defendants asserted the same as the grounds for appeal at the lower court, and on this, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendants removed the steel rail of this case, and that the Defendants allowed the removal of the rail in light of the purpose of the rail.
It is difficult to see that the removal of a rail is difficult to see and that it is difficult to see that the value of the leased object is enhanced, and the above assertion has been rejected. In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.
The rail of this case is obligated to install safety facilities for the fall prevention and escape space in the event of fire under the relevant laws, and even if it was ordinarily used by the defendants, the rail of this case was used exclusively by the defendants.
Even if it is not possible to arbitrarily remove the rooftop rail installed due to safety reasons as above, it is objective to view the rooftop as the exclusive space of the defendants, such as that the defendants in the lease contract leased the rooftop including the rooftop part.