Defendant

The appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (deficiencies or misapprehension of legal principles) is merely that the Defendant left the boundary line indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “the boundary line of this case”) by flying away from the boundary line, and did not destroy the boundary line of this case.

Since the victim Heung Construction Co., Ltd. illegally installed the boundary stone of this case, the boundary stone of this case does not constitute property of the crime of causing property damage under the Criminal Act.

First of all, the victim installed the boundary of this case illegally, and it is unreasonable to punish only the defendant.

2. Determination 1) The crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established in cases where the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or where the utility thereof is harmed by other means. The act of impairing the utility of property refers to, in fact, making the property difficult to be used for its original purpose, and includes making it difficult to temporarily use the property. According to the evidence duly adopted by the court below, the act of causing damage to the property of this case constitutes an unlawful act of causing damage to the property of this case by using concrete cutting on the floor and setting the boundary boundary boundary line on the above floor. The act of causing damage to the property of this case constitutes an unlawful act of causing damage to the property of this case by temporarily setting the boundary line (Evidence 10, 14 of the Evidence No. 10 of this case) before the defendant's concrete cutting down. ② The boundary line of this case does not break up, but the act of the defendant does not play a role temporarily as the boundary line on the part of the defendant's act, ③ certain expenses are considered to constitute an act of causing damage to the boundary of the property of this case.