The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the elements of the crime of destroying property or by removing the location tracking device (GPS) (GPS) from the instant car (C). However, since the location tracking device was not lost and the Defendant did not intend to destroy the location tracking device, the crime of destroying property is not established.

B. Around June 6, 2016, the Defendant: (a) sold Cubs for KRW 10 million to D; and (b) leased the instant vehicle without compensation, knowing that D owned by D, until D was paid the purchase-price; (c) sought to d’s illegal location tracking devices to block the illegal location tracking; and (d) removed the location tracking devices in order to protect the Defendant’s property from D’s illegal location tracking devices; (b) thus, the said act constitutes a justifiable act that does not contravene the social rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (the amount of KRW 500,00 and the cost of the lawsuit) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Determination of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the elements for the crime of destroying property is established when a crime of destroying property is committed in a case where the utility of a special media record, such as another person’s property, documents, or electronic records, is damaged or concealed by any other means (Article 366 of the Criminal Act). Here, in a case where the utility is damaged by damage or concealment, it includes not only the case where the goods, etc. cannot be used for their original purpose, but also the case where the utility is reduced by temporarily making them in a state where the goods, etc.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the defendant 1 is the coos vehicle against D.