The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Making a mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle that the Defendant moves bit lease to a recycling product constitutes damage and damage to property.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the amount of KRW 500,000 of a fine) is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act of moving bit lease to a recycling product constitutes an act detrimental to the utility of bit lease, and constitutes an act detrimental

1) The victim entered into a lease contract with the defendant and entered into an apartment complex as stated in the judgment below (hereinafter “instant apartment complex”).

A) Although the lease agreement was reached while residing in, the Defendant did not receive any refund of part of the deposit for lease from the Defendant. The victim left a bit lease and went to the director in the apartment of this case. 2) The property, which is the object of the crime of causing property damage, does not necessarily have a monetary exchange value, and it is sufficient that the owner has a subjective value.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5183, Oct. 28, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007). The victim had exercised the right of simultaneous performance defense while maintaining the possession of the apartment in this case based on the deposit not returned. As such, the lease left by the victim has functioned in explicitly revealing the possession of the apartment in this case, and the subjective value is sufficiently recognized.

In addition, in light of the shape of the Twit Lease, the victim's statement in the court below, etc., it does not seem that there is no objective value as property.

3. Where the defendant transfers the article to a recycling site, which is an appropriate place for keeping the article without the consent of the victim, the original property is considered as a practical and emotional reason.