Defendant

In addition, the defense counsel stated that the defendant's argument about mental disorder is erroneous and that the agreement attached to the agreement is reference material, so the grounds for appeal by the defendant is erroneous and misunderstanding of legal principles.

The Defendant did not perform the construction of water leakage in this case without the consent of the victim.

When the defendant received the construction cost from the victim, he tried to inform the password of the temporary locker of this case, which is likely to be regarded as the exercise of the right of retention to preserve the right to claim the construction cost, so there was no intention to damage the defendant.

2. The judgment below also made the same assertion in the court below, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion in determining that the defendant had intention to damage the Ba in this case by arbitrarily changing the password of the defective locking device without the victim's permission, considering the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below.

In addition to the circumstances properly explained by the lower court, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant requested the victim to conduct a construction check, and inspected on November 23, 2018, presented the amount of construction to the victim, but did not agree with the victim as to the construction cost.