The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around March 2015, the Defendant purchased the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government general house located adjacent to the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cown, in which the victim resides, and subsequently reconstructed the house with four floors.

On October 1, 2015, the Defendant, while performing removal works for the housing purchased as above, destroyed the flower and the entrance of the divided owners, such as E, F, G, H, I, J, K, etc., residing in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cown, and damaged the amount of 30 seat of L’s substitute seat attached inside the rear door and damaged the market value.

2. According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court of this case, the defendant purchased the above C-Ba adjacent to the above C-Ba (hereinafter "the housing of this case"), and entered into a contract for removal and new construction with M-L, a construction business operator, M-L, removed the fence of the housing of this case, and removed C-L, attached to the wall of this case, and the removal of the wall of this case was attached to the wall of this case due to the removal work of the wall of this case.

The circumstances can be recognized, such as the fact that part of the front door door door door door door door door door door is deemed to have decreased in its functional value, and that part of the front door door door door was damaged after the construction.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., the removal of the fence of the instant house and the structure of the CBL group, as long as the removal of the fence of the instant house is inevitable, the Defendant and M are not all the co-owners of the instant house, but the Defendant and M appear to have explained and sought understanding on the construction to some residents, and the installation of a fireproof body is again installed after the completion of the new construction, and the installation of the CBL door door door part of the wall seems to have been due to work negligence in the course of new construction, and the destruction of the substitute stone part also appears to have been done.