The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal - Fact misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles

A. The fact that the instant building is owned by the Victim F, and that the Defendant, the key company, removed the existing digital fishing village installed at the entrance (hereinafter “fishing village”) and installed a new fishing village without dispute is recognized.

B. The original utility of a fishing village is to prevent access to a person who has no access authority, and part of a fishing village was physically damaged at the time when the Defendant replaced a fishing village.

Even if there are different functions to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the land, and therefore, the owner's arbitrary replacement of the land at will constitutes the act of damaging property.

(c)

Nevertheless, the court below found the facts charged of this case not guilty by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles on the damage to property.

2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. From June 24, 2017 to June 25, 2017, the Defendant: (a) removed digital fingers equivalent to KRW 170,000 at the entrance door installed to prevent the victim F from entering the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E and 301 between around 17:00 and around June 25, 2017; and (b) destroyed by replacing them with new digital fingers.

B. As to the above facts charged, the lower court determined that “ insofar as it is recognized that the Defendant had been damaged at the time of replacing a fishing village, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the fishing village already installed at the time of the replacement of the fishing village, and that there was no evidence to prove that the fishing village already installed was damaged, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, thereby impairing its utility by replacing

It is insufficient to recognize.

“Judgment of innocence was pronounced on the ground that it was not guilty.”

3. Determination of the Committee - guilty

A. “Seoul Seocho-gu E, 301 (hereinafter “the instant building”)” as indicated in the facts charged is jointly owned by the victim F (the mother of the Defendant) and P (the Defendant’s omission) on the registry.