The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is that the warning board of this case has the utility for confirmation of boundaries, and thus constitutes property damage as long as the defendant arbitrarily removed it.

In light of the background leading up to the removal of the warning board of this case and the relationship between the parties, the arbitrarily removing the warning board of this case constitutes an unlawful act in which social reasonableness is not recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the warning board of this case has no utility as a warning board, and that it constitutes an act that does not violate the social rules and thus constitutes an act that does not violate the social rules, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

2. Determination

A. On August 5, 2013, the Defendant of the instant facts charged, at the entrance of the D located in Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si, the victim E, set up at the entrance of the D, with the warning board stating “I are prohibited from entering and leaving the Republic of Korea,” thereby undermining the utility of the warning board, by taking a warning board temporarily making I cannot play a role in the warning board.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the instant warning board cannot be deemed as a warning board having the usefulness as a warning board prohibiting entry into and departure from the country, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant had a criminal intent to impair such usefulness of the warning board, and that it constitutes an act that does not violate social rules and thus constitutes an act that does not violate social rules and thus, the illegality is excluded.

C. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the evidence of the lower court’s findings of fact-finding (1).

① Since the victim E purchased land and above-ground inspection buildings (D) in Gangseo-si, 1989, it has been operating the inspection.

(2) On April 2013, the Defendant jointly purchased the above F land near D Access Roads, and used part of them as D Access Roads and part thereof, etc.