The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not harm the boiler’s utility.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of property damage in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is established when a special media record, such as another person’s property, documents, or electronic records, is destroyed or concealed, or otherwise damaged its utility by any other means. Here, the crime of property damage includes not only cases where goods, etc. cannot be used for their original original purpose but also cases where goods, etc. cannot be used temporarily as a material destruction act. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant: (a) did not install a boiler in a newly constructed house and receive construction payment from C; (b) did not take part of the construction payment from C; (c) caused a boiler to prevent the normal operation of the boiler by inserting the pipe to another installation company, which does not operate normally; and (d) found the boiler in the process and removed it; and (e) found that the boiler normally operated after the boiler was found and removed; and (e) the Defendant created a temporary operation of the boiler as a result of the aforementioned recognition.

I would like to say.

B. Although the Defendant did not receive a part of the construction cost from the damaged party, the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine due to the crime of property damage, and the victim wants to punish the Defendant, and taking into account all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the age, behavior, environment, etc. of the Defendant, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion.