[1] The standard for determining whether the act of writing a shot on the wall of a structure or posting a notice or dumping a garbage constitutes a crime of causing property damage

[2] The case holding that the act of falling short of the company's outer wall and the first floor wall while holding an assembly demanding reinstatement by dismissed workers, etc., can be deemed as impairing the utility of the building, but the act of throwing out 30 or more buildings in a separate column does not constitute an act of impairing the utility of the building

[1] The crime of destroying and damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Code is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or when it harms its utility by other means. Here, the term "conscising the utility of property" refers to making the property in a state in which it can not be provided for its original purpose of use, and includes making it in a state in which it cannot be used temporarily. In particular, whether the act of a scisf or posting a notice on the wall of a structure constitutes an act of damaging the utility of the structure, such as the use and function of the structure, the impact of the act on lighting, ventilation and view of the structure, etc., the degree of harming the aesthetic view of the structure, the users of the structure, the sense of difficulty and difficulty of restoration, expenses incurred therein, the purpose and continuity of the act, and the situation at the time of the act, etc. shall be determined in accordance with social norms by taking into account all the circumstances.

[2] The case holding that the act of falling short of the company's outer wall and the first floor wall while holding an assembly demanding reinstatement by dismissed workers, etc. can be seen as impairing the utility of the building, but it does not constitute an act of throwing 30 in a separate column from this, to the extent that it harms the utility of the building

[1] Article 366 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 366 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 71Do1576 delivered on November 23, 1971 (No. 19-3, 50) Supreme Court Decision 92Do1345 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 2702) Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701 delivered on December 7, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 402)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2006No921-1 (Separation) decided March 16, 2007

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to joint assault and joint injury

"When two or more persons jointly commit a crime listed in any subparagraph of Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship between them. They require that several persons are aware of another person's crime in the same opportunity and commit a crime using the same opportunity (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do4305 delivered on February 25, 200, etc.). Further, where several persons conspired to commit a crime listed in Article 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and two or more persons have committed a crime at the place of crime, they may be punished as a co-principal of a crime listed in Article 2 (2) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do2529 delivered on December 10, 196, etc.). Meanwhile, in the crime of bodily injury of a victim, it means that it damages the completeness of the body of the victim or interferes with the function of the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do4590, Apr. 29, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is justified in taking full account of the evidence in its reasoning and maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of both the defendant's joint injury against the victim non-indicted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and the joint assault against the victim non-indicted 7, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the concept of joint principal offender or injury as alleged in

2. As to the damage to common property

The crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Code is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or is prejudicial to its utility by other means. Here, the term "conscising the utility of the property" means, in fact or by appraisal, converting the property into a state where it cannot be used for its original purpose, and includes temporarily converting the property into a state where it cannot be used (see Supreme Court Decisions 71Do1576, Nov. 23, 1971; 92Do1345, Jul. 28, 1992; 93Do2701, Dec. 7, 1993, etc.).

In particular, whether an act of writing on the wall surface of a structure or an act of throwing down a notice or a garbage constitutes an act of harming the utility of the structure should be determined according to social norms by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the purpose and function of the structure in question, the impact of the act on lighting, ventilation, lighting, and lighting of the structure, the impact of the act on the view of lighting, ventilation, lighting, etc., the degree of harm to the aesthetic view of the structure, the inconvenience or resistance that the building users feel, the cost to be incurred, the purpose and continuity of the act, and the situation at the time

Examining the circumstances in light of the above legal principles, the act of a defendant dismissed from an intra-city bus transportation company with members of the Special Committee on the Scamy against the Republic of Korea, which was held on March 10, 2006 at an assembly that demanded reinstatement, etc. at the above company, which was conducted on the wall of the company's outer wall, the wall of the first floor, the wall of the restaurant stairs, and the wall of the "Capital excreta, the reinstatement of office, and the studio" in removal of approximately KRW 3.410,00,00 in consideration of the degree that harms the aesthetic view of the building, the inconvenience of the users of the building, and the difficulty in restoring and restoring the building to its original condition. However, the act of investing the above company in each of the above buildings with the number of columns 30 on February 16 of the same year, and the act of cleaning the building to the extent that it does not affect the external utility of the building, even if taking into account that it does not affect the external utility of the building.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that each of the following acts constituted a crime of causing property damage in addition to the above act of causing property damage. In this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of causing property damage, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below on February 16, 2006 and March 2, 2006 of the same year is not maintained. Since the court below rendered a single sentence on all the remaining convictions in the concurrent crimes relationship with this part under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)