The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

With regard to the point of damage to property by misunderstanding the legal principles of the grounds for appeal, locks and security devices installed in the current door are installed in the process of performing works not especially installed for the exercise of lien by B, and the ownership is owned by the contractor or the owner of the building.

Therefore, the Defendant did not commit the crime of damaging property merely because he damaged his own property.

With regard to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion), although the Defendant entered the instant house along with the friendly-gu two persons, two vice-person of the construction, and two keys, according to the contract with the Defendant, two vice-person of the construction work and two vice-persons of the Defendant’s friendship did not have awareness and intent as to the entry of the Defendant to identify the remaining materials necessary for the construction, and thus, they cannot be deemed as having invaded upon the instant house jointly with the Defendant.

The sentencing of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

항소 이유에 대한 판단 법리 오해 주장에 관하여 재물 손괴의 점 관련 원심에서 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사실 및 사정, 즉 ① B은 G으로부터 도급 받은 이 사건 주택 실내인 테리어 공사 등을 대부분 완료하였음에도 공사대금을 지급 받지 못하게 되자 2013. 7. 29. 경부터 유치권을 행사할 목적으로 이 사건 주택을 점유하여 온 사실, ② B은 수사기관에서 유치권 행사를 위하여 잠금장치, 보안 시스템, 현수막을 설치하였는데 피고인이 이를 각 손괴하고 이 사건 주택에 들어갔다는 취지로 진술한 점, ③ B이 수사기관에 제출한 견적서와 시스템경비 계약서에 의하면, B은 유치권을 행사하기 시작한 후인 2013. 8. 4. 현관 보조 키를 설치하고 2013. 8. 6.에 ㈜Q 와 시스템경비 계약을...