beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles)
A. In order to recognize the criminal intent of damage to property, there must be awareness that the defendant would lose the utility of property against the owner's will. The existing removal pents, which the defendant removed, correspond to the whole of the members, and it cannot be established in relation to one of the members, and therefore, the act of this case by the defendant was damaged to another's property.
Now we cannot see (Ⅰ). B. The Defendant did not have the intent to commit a crime of damage to property since he did not have the awareness that he would harm the utility of the instant steel pents against the owner’s will, and the iron pents were installed illegally without the resolution of the party or the joint conference, and there is a need to remove the car pents due to the violation of the Parking Law, so the Defendant’s repair and replacement with the safe steel gate is not an infringement of its utility (Ⅱ).
In full view of all circumstances, such as the fact that the existing iron pents were installed illegally without the resolution of the party meeting, that the parking lot was in violation of the parking lot law and the defendant removed pents from the purpose of remuneration for the safety of traffic residents, the damage of this case by the defendant constitutes a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act (negative). 2.
A. (i) As to the assertion I, even if the members are, in relation to the church property that is the subject of the right to collective ownership of the members (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2981, Aug. 21, 1984, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the defendant was found to have arbitrarily removed without following the lawful resolution, procedure, etc. of the members of the entire church in relation to the removal of the building of this case. Thus, the defendant's act of this case damaged another's property.
Since it is sufficient to see it, the argument I is without merit.
B. (i) The Criminal Code is applicable to the argument II.