The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) Among three Dongs owned by the victim D Co., Ltd. in Gwangju Northern-gu, Gwangju Northern-gu, the property which is the object of the crime of destruction is not specified because the Defendant’s construction on the first floor side of the E-dong (hereinafter “factory building of this case”) which was installed on the outer wall of August 31, 2015 (hereinafter “the factory building of this case”) owned by the victim was not the same as the victim’s assertion.

2) The instant exhaustion has objective and subjective economic value.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3) Since the Defendant purchased the instant house from the injured party, it does not constitute “other person’s property” rather than the victim’s ownership, which is the object of the crime of destruction as prescribed by Article 366 of the Criminal Act.

4) If the instant period was owned by the victim, the Defendant purchased the instant period along with other machines even if it was owned by the victim.

Since there was a good reason to believe such belief, there was no intention of damage to the defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On September 16, 2015 and September 30, 2015, the court below and the court of the first instance duly adopted and investigated on the part of the court below and the court of the first instance, including the minutes of Sep. 16, 2015 as to whether the instant earthquake was specified, and the minutes of the meeting of Sep. 30, 2015, the pictures of the house-raising facilities owned by the party who removed or stolen the instant factory building, etc., the instant dust was installed on the outer wall of the instant factory building from the time when the Defendant leased the instant factory building, etc., and the fact that the Defendant removed the building is sufficiently recognized. Thus, the property, which is the object of the crime of property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act, is the property.