The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant, although Co-defendant B of the court below and the manager of the commercial building of this case, lent the door to remove the illegal banner and temporarily lent it, he did not conspired with the above B and the crime, and did not intend to cause damage to property, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or erroneous determination of facts, even though it did not intend to cause damage to property.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged and the Defendant were the residents of Ulsan-gu C commercial buildings, and the victim, among the co-owners of the above commercial buildings, had a conflict with D and the management of the commercial buildings, he/she would be able to bring his/her phone number on the outer wall of the commercial building to damage them.

On October 23, 2018, around 15:04, the Defendant and B damaged two banners owned by the victim in a way that the Defendant can cut the banner easily, and the Defendant damaged two banners in a way that the contact contact part of the banners prepared in advance are easily cut off.

As a result, the defendant, together with B, destroyed two banners equivalent to 180,000 won in the market price owned by the victim.

B. The lower court determined that: (a) each of the instant placards was installed by the victim D on his own expenses in around 2018, and the Defendant and B knew that each of the instant placards was installed in D, instead of the goods installed in the commercial management body, in the process of discussing whether it was possible to remove and remove and install G and banner before the Defendant and B cut the banner; and (b) nonetheless, it can be recognized that the said banner was set up by D without obtaining D’s consent; (c) even if each of the instant placards was illegal outdoor advertisements installed without reporting to the competent management body or obtaining permission from the competent management body, the Defendant and B were involved in such unlawful state.