The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Recognizing the fact that the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, destroyed the boiler room’s wall walls and wooden windows, the boiler room does not constitute “other’s property” which is the object of the crime of destruction as owned by the Defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. On February 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) destroyed and damaged the boiler room’s wall and wooden windows installed in the residence owned by the Victim D (Inn, 45 years of age) in Gunsan-si on February 26, 2017 to ensure that the Defendant was installed on his/her own land, thereby impairing the utility of the instant charges by causing the repair cost equivalent to KRW 1,100,000, 100, such as incidentals, using lushes.

B. The lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the boiler room of this case was consistent with the house purchased by the victim D and cannot be deemed an independent real estate, even if the Defendant directly constructed the boiler, it did not own the Defendant’s ownership.

(c)

(1) However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

2) In a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial, and the finding of guilt must be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if the defendant is suspected of guilty, the interest of the defendant should be determined by the interests of the defendant (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151 Decided July 22, 2010). In light of the following facts acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, and the circumstances revealed through this, it is difficult to readily conclude the boiler room of this case as the property of another person, not the ownership of the defendant.