The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

On September 2013, the Defendant, who misleads the Defendant of the summary of the grounds for appeal, was engaged in repairing the three floors of the building D D (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon with the express and implied consent of the victim E, and thus, the Defendant cannot be found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged in the instant case.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (4 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the victim E, the main owner of the building D in Seo-gu Daejeon District, who was delegated the management of the building, along with F.

The defendant from the end of January 2014 to the same year.

2. On the third floor of the above D building owned by the victim, the third floor is removed from the office of the third floor of the above D building without the consent of the victim, and on the order of the repair of the third floor without the consent of the victim, the office of the third floor of the above building was arbitrarily removed, and yellow soil bricks, etc.

Accordingly, the third floor of the above building owned by the defendant was damaged to be equivalent to 123,744,000 won in the estimation of repair and its utility was impaired.

The lower court, based on the evidence as indicated in the lower judgment, reserved the judgment on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the amount of property damage is equivalent to KRW 123,744,000 on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in light of the current state of the commercial building in this case, etc., even though the lower court acknowledged the conviction

In recognition of the criminal intent of damage to property subject to deliberation, even though the intention of planned damage or actively wishes to damage the property, recognition of the loss of the utility of the property against the owner’s will must be required (Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701 delivered on December 7, 1993). In addition, the burden of proving the criminal fact prosecuted in a single criminal trial has been borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction is recognized.