The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the Defendant would remove the instant small-scale Office from E, a seller in the process of purchasing the land of Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and the above office cannot be deemed as the ownership of the victim D, etc. without any use for a long period of time. Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant did not have any intent to damage, thereby misleading the fact that the Defendant was guilty.

2. The lower court, based on the circumstances set out in its reasoning, can sufficiently recognize that the Defendant had the intention of damage at the time when the Defendant mobilized heavy equipment around July 30, 2015 and removed the counter-office of the instant case from the time of removing the counter-office of the instant item.

The decision was determined.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.