The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as the Defendant was removed from the notice that was posted to him in detail, was placed about 15 minutes after the notice was placed in the place, there was no intention for the Defendant to impair the utility of the notice.

B. The written public notice of this case constitutes an unlawful public notice since it constitutes a content that slanders privacy by publicly announcing false facts about Defendant’s act, etc. or by openly pointing out facts during the election period. The removal of such information constitutes a justifiable act that does not contravene social norms.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion that there was no intention to commit the crime of damage to property 1) In recognition of the intention to commit the crime of damage to property, it does not necessarily have to have a planned intention to damage or to actively wish to damage the property, but it is sufficient to recognize that there was an awareness that it would lose the utility of property against the owner’s will, and it includes not only making the document unable to provide it for its original purpose but also temporarily making it unusable (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do13083, Nov. 27, 2015, etc.) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do13083, Nov. 27, 2015).

Even if it has become clear that the notice was temporarily unable to use the notice, and ③ the defendant merely read the notice in detail to read the notice, or read it after photographing it by using a mobile phone camera, the defendant's act is deemed to have been taken by considering the fact that the above notice was removed.