1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

The sentence for B shall be suspended.

2...

1. The lower court acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that, in light of the frequency, intensity, and attitude of Defendant A’s removal of the fenced fenced by large tidal money, Defendant A had sufficiently recognized the Defendants as to the intent of damage to the fenced fenced, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the instant facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the head of the site leader of the new construction site in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E (hereinafter “E”) and the Defendant A is a daily worker. The victim F is the owner of Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu H (hereinafter “H land”) (hereinafter “H land”) and the owner of I, who installed a fence between E and H’s land.

On March 6, 2017, at around 12:13, the Defendants jointly destroyed the repair cost to verify whether the boundary fence is separated from the fence installed in E’s land among the removal work of the existing building for new construction of the land of E, Defendant B instructed Defendant A to leave the boundary fence into large seas, Defendant A instructed Defendant A to remove the boundary fence into large seas, and Defendant A ordered Defendant A to remove the fence from large seas in compliance with the direction. Defendant A destroyed the repair cost.

B. According to the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendants: (a) ordered Defendant B to remove the fence from the fence installed on the land E to check whether the fence was separated from the fence installed on the land; (b) Defendant A left the fence at a large amount from around 11:57 on March 6, 2017 to around 12:00; (c) Defendant A suspended work on a small amount of fence at around 12:00 on the same day; (d) Defendant A suspended work; and (e) on the same day, the fact that the fence was collapseed to H land on the boundary around 12:13 on the same day; and under these factual relations, in light of the parts, frequency, and intensity of the fence installed on the land at the boundary of the Defendant A at a large amount, the Defendants’ boundary.