A. Inasmuch as the Defendant’s act constitutes a lawful exercise of a lien and does not constitute a property damage, and the Defendant did not have an intention to damage another’s property. The Defendant did not have any intention to damage another’s property.

B. Even if there is no unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. ① The defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant has written red presses on the glass of the building at issue, etc. at issue as stated in the facts charged of this case. These acts by the defendant constitute damage to the utility of the building at issue. ② According to the records of this case, it is doubtful whether the defendant is a legitimate lien holder for the building at issue. Even if the defendant is a legitimate lien holder as alleged in his own, the lien holder shall possess the thing at issue with the care of a good manager (Article 324(1) of the Civil Act). Even if the defendant is a legitimate lien holder, the lien holder cannot be deemed as a use necessary for the preservation of the thing at issue, and ③ the defendant can be found guilty of the damage and damage caused by an intentional act on January 5, 2013 and January 10, 2013.