The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim F is not a legitimate authorized administrator of the instant building.

The Defendant, the owner of the instant building, and D who was delegated with the authority to manage the said building by him, entered the words “in the course of lien” in the instant building, or put the house in a string, and received explicit implied consent to exercise the lien.

(Destruction of and damage to property and damage to a structure). (b)

The defendant did not have any intention to inflict any injury on K.

First of all, the victim's injury was suffered by disputing one another with the wind that he did not own, and the defendant is only a lien holder who has to engage in an act to obstruct the exercise of the lien as a victim.

(Bodily Injury). (c)

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the part of the damage to property and the damage to a structure, the victim F operated a restaurant in the instant building from January 14, 2012 to May 21, 2012, and thereafter, the victim F operated the restaurant business in the instant building from around January 14, 2012. After that, the date of the crime in this part of the building, which was the date of the crime in this case, the restaurant was closed due to the difficulty in operating the restaurant, and operated the restaurant with pay for the parking lot. The Defendant did not confirm the victim’s intention even though he did not possess possession of the instant building at the time and was aware that the victim was occupying and managing the said building, and without confirming the victim’s intention, it can be recognized that the Defendant carried the house into the instant building and carried it out.

According to the above facts, the victim F is the legitimate authorized administrator of possession of the building of this case at the time, and the defendant put in the house without the consent or permission of the victim.