The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 400,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, prior to 25 years prior to the mistake of facts, removed to restore the instant steel exhausters to the original state, which was installed in the first floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building 8 (hereinafter “instant store”). As such, the crime of causing property damage cannot be established.

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

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the records on the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts may be acknowledged. (A) The Defendant: (a) leased the instant store from D in 1975 to run the original wholesale business; (b) after D’s death, the heir E and the lease contract were renewed, and the lease contract was terminated around that time on April 19, 201 due to the reasons for the termination of lease.

B) On July 28, 2011, E filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the order of the instant store, etc., and the lawsuit was finalized on February 20, 2013 by the final judgment (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Na22364, Jan. 25, 2013) that became final and conclusive on February 20, 2013, and the instant order was completely executed on March 18, 2013. In the process of the lawsuit, the instant order was rejected by the Defendant, despite having filed a defense of the claim for purchase of accessories to various facilities. (C) The Defendant did not accept the said order execution, while having filed a complaint against the said order, sent I to perform the business of installing glass doors, etc., and removed the instant iron bars who functioned as the entrance of the instant store and carried out the functions of the entrance of the instant order.

2. In order to determine the establishment of the crime of destroying and damaging property, it shall be determined by taking into account whether any movable is attached and combined to the extent that it is impossible to separate the movable without incurring excessive expenses, and whether it can be the object of separate ownership in transactions with economic utility independent of existing real estate in its physical structure, use and function.