The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the crime of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the destruction of and damage to property), the intention of the Defendant is only aware that another person’s goods are damaged, and it is not necessary to perceive that it is against the owner’s will. The Defendant, without prior consent of the victim, contacted the victim with the locking device of the building stated in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter “the locking device of this case”) and confirmed his intention. Thus, the Defendant’s intentional act is recognized, and the Defendant’s removal of the locking device of this case constitutes the crime of property damage.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of causing property damage is established by the destruction of another’s property against the owner’s will, as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

In recognizing the intention of causing property damage, it does not necessarily have to have the intention of planned damage or actively wish to damage property against the owner’s will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701, Dec. 7, 1993). The following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Health Team, the lower court, and the trial court regarding the instant case, namely, ① the Defendant sold the instant building to the victim on February 13, 2018, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 20th of the same month, and the Defendant and the victim did not notify the Defendant of the password of the password of the locking device of this case. ② The victim requested the Defendant to deliver the instant building, including that the locking device was transferred several times.