2. The crime of destroying and damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or where the utility of the property is harmed by other means. Here, the term "conscing the utility of the property" refers to making the property in a state where it cannot be used for its original purpose of use due to actual or appraisal, and includes making the property unusable temporarily (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701, Dec. 7, 1993). In particular, whether the act of posting a notice on a certain object harms the utility of the property or not shall be determined in accordance with social norms by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the use and function of the object; the degree that the act harms the aesthetic view of the object; the sense of harm to the users of the object; the difficulty and difficulty of restoring the object; expenses incurred; the purpose and continuity of the act; and the situation at the time of the act.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do2568, Sept. 4, 2014). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the victim did not have any particular time and expenses for removal, such as making it difficult for the victim to take advantage of a notice posted by the Defendant (in addition, attaching a paper containing the content of the facts charged on a chest face) using water drying, etc., which was attached by the Defendant.