The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who mispers the fact, did not harm the utility of the product, and since the product was purchased by the Defendant at the time of living with the victim, it does not constitute the damage of property.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to whether the defendant's act constitutes impairing the utility of chemicalization, and the court below also argued the same purport as the argument in this part of the appeal. The court below held that the defendant's act of putting chemical flowers and soil scattered on the floor by exceeding several chemical parts constitutes a crime of damaging property since it constitutes an act that makes it impossible to play its role. In the crime of destroying property, the court below held that the crime of damaging property constitutes a crime of damaging property since the act of destroying property constitutes not only a case where the act of destroying property is made in a state where the original purpose cannot be used, but also a case where the act of converting the property temporarily cannot play its specific role (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7219, Dec. 22, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just and there is an error of law of

subsection (b) of this section.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, which are duly adopted and investigated by the evidence that the portion of this case constitutes another person’s property, namely, ① the change of the portion of this case’s possession from an investigative agency to the lower court’s trial, which was a new addition from the investigation agency to the lower court’s trial, making it difficult to believe it as it is; ② the portion of this case’s chemical was placed on the rooftop of the victim’s residence; ② was entirely under the victim’s possession and management; ③ the Defendant purchased the portion of chemical at his own expense.

Even if the purchase time is the time of living with the victim, it is the time of living with the victim, and it is connected with the victim on August 2016.