The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) Defendant A, despite dispute as to whether he/she has the right of retention, destroyed the victim’s work by using the writing “in the course of exercising the right of retention” as soon as possible on the outer wall of the retaining wall and the building owned by the victim, and the victim was released from the retaining wall, and not only caused additional loan to the above construction site as security, but also the above act by Defendant A does not constitute a justifiable act because it is excessive means or method. 2) Defendant A’s above act by the victim’s instruction and at the construction site of this case, Defendant A interfered with the victim’s work by using the words such as “in the course of litigation, the site is being damaged,” “a claim for damages,” and the victim’s behavior was not likely to collapse in the land that was adjacent to the victim at the time. In full view of the fact that the appraisal had already been completed at the time, the victim’s above act is unlikely to be a legitimate act.

3) Therefore, the lower court’s determination that each of the above acts by the Defendants constitutes a justifiable act is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts. (B) The lower court’s punishment against the victim B of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000 is too unfounded and unreasonable

2. Determination

A. On March 11, 2013, at around 09:00 on March 11, 2013, Defendant A’s property damage and damage Defendant A’s property damage and caused damage to the victim’s property by inserting a letter that “in the course of exercising the right of retention as soon as possible on the outer wall of the building owned by the victim and the retaining wall at the construction site, the victim F, the owner of the building, is not paid the construction cost.”

B. Defendants’ 2