The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is not that the Defendant removed from the intent to damage the Washington, etc. of this case (each of subparagraphs 201, 205, and 304) but that was removed for the purpose of repairing the defects, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant did not have an intention to destroy the property, and thereby convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case.

In addition, since the defendant was removed from the 201 heading 201 heading and 304 heading boxes were used again, it should be sentenced to not guilty at least in this part.

2. The court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the victim’s employee E is removed from the Washington at the investigation stage up to the court below’s order, and thus, it cannot be readily denied its credibility because it stated that the defendant was removed from the Washington upon the completion of the investigation stage up to the Defendant’s installation; ② the victim was informed by telephone immediately at the site; ② the defendant was removed from the Washington to correct the defect in the part entrusted with the construction work in accordance with the rule of experience; ③ the victim requested the construction; ③ there was no reason for the victim to request the construction; ③ there was a dispute over the payment of the construction cost between the Defendant and the victim before the crime of this case; ④ the witness or the Defendant’s lack of evidence to acknowledge that the defect in the payment of the construction cost was not consistent with the schedule, etc., as alleged by the Defendant; and thus, the Defendant’s allegation that the payment of the construction cost was removed by the Defendant cannot be accepted.