A. Defendant A, a representative director, E (hereinafter “E”) contracted the construction of 13 units of “H pention” on the ground of land HYYY-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) from O, etc., and constructed a new pention with full payment of the construction cost. As such, the above pention acquired E at the original time. The victim F merely was not the sewage supplier of the said pention-gun Construction, but the above pention-gun’s site warden.

Around October 5, 2011, in the name of E, G, and F, an agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) stating that “F shall complete the construction of a new H H pent, and B, 3 Dongs, E, and F shall own the remainder.” However, Defendant A merely borrowed construction expenses from a bond company with the seal affixed on the letter of agreement and affixed the seal on the office’s book that “S shall immediately return it after borrowing the construction expenses from the bond company,” and there is no consent to the content of the instant agreement, and the agreement under the instant agreement is not in the name of E but in the name of T, and thus, the agreement under the instant agreement was not effective.

In addition, the F did not acquire the rights under the instant agreement since the F did not complete the construction of the H penta within the time limit stipulated in the instant agreement.

Therefore, based on the instant agreement, it cannot be deemed that the instant agreement constitutes F-owned property.

Therefore, Defendant B, an employee of E, removed 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, and the balcony part of the above pentine with no consent of F.

Even the crime of damage to property is not established.

B. Defendant B’s employees of E, which are the supply and demand of Hpent Construction Work, to remove and reconstruct the portion not constructed according to the construction permit drawing as indicated in the facts charged.