The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the part of the damage of property around May 2013 is acquitted.

A summary of the grounds for appeal on May 2013: Around the end of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant alleged that he/she was guilty does not destroy the leleth day specified in the facts charged.

On January 26, 2016, the victim closed the 2nd floor car page as indicated in the facts charged, and the other lessee only closed the 1st floor tea house on May 2013, 201, and only closed the 1st floor tea house on which the Defendant acquired it and extended the 1st floor, and affixed a new signboard with the building owner’s permission on the part of the 2nd Bish Iron, which was installed by the Defendant (see, e.g., a document of the grounds of appeal by January 26, 2017). The lower court’s punishment of the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is unreasonable because it is too uneasible.

On July 3, 2015: The non-guilty part of the lower judgment is the Defendant, since the Defendant’s assertion of the facts by mistake was requested to the staff of the security company to remove a sign or sign indicated in the facts charged.

In addition, there were consistent credibility of the statements made by one victim, and there was a circumstance that the dispute was pending due to the installation of signboards between the defendant and the victim before and after the case.

Even if this part of the facts charged is found guilty, the court below rejected the victim's statement and acquitted the victim.

On May 2013, a public prosecutor who made an ex officio judgment on the damage of property applied for changes in the indictment to the bottom of the original facts charged at the court below, and the court permitted it on the date of the fourth public trial.

- Under the following, the Defendant is a person who operates the pro rata Products Points with the trade name, “D”, part of the first floor of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C.

The Defendant, around May 2013, leased part of the second floor of the above building and used jointly with the Victim F, who operated the “E” carpet, is the first floor (D) and the second floor (E) on the outer wall of the building between the victim and the victim, and the outer wall of the steel plates installed by the victim (one string: one string).