A. The lower court’s determination that all of the instant facts charged was found guilty by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the Defendant’s defense counsel asserts as follows.

1) Of the facts constituting the crime indicated in the judgment below, as to each of the facts constituting the crime committed at least 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 items of crime: ① The victim’s notice “a CCTV recording prohibited from parking” (hereinafter “the instant notice”) does not constitute a special media record, such as a document or electronic record, and property nature is not recognized; ② the act of posting a Defendant’s notice on the above notice harms the victim’s usefulness.

(4) An expression of intent to cope with illegal parking prohibition is a justifiable act that does not go against social norms.

2) As to the crime committed again 3 times a year of crime sight table among the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, since the signboards of victim's parking prohibition (hereinafter "signboards of this case") only tried to be separated from ordinary areas and to move only at locations, they cannot be viewed as damaging the utility. ② There is no intention of damage and ③ there is no intention of damage, and ③ It is intended to change the location of the sign board of prohibition of parking which affected delivery, and thus, it constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against social rules.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We also examine the arguments as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime committed at 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 times a year in the sight table of crime as indicated in the judgment below, and the arguments as to the crime committed at 3 times a year in the sight table of crime as indicated in the judgment below.

Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the relevant legal principles as applied to this case, each act of the defendant in the facts charged is a property owned by the victim, or the instant notice or the instant case.