The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant's act of packaging part of land owned by the victim in cement B at door-to-door constitutes an act of impairing the utility of property, and the defendant's intentional act of damaging property is deemed to have been committed, but the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by authority, the prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with the content that “an amount equivalent to approximately 240 square meters (three meters in width and 80cm in length) out of the instant facts charged,” among the instant facts charged, is changed to approximately 93 square meters in the above land,” and the subject of the judgment by this court was changed to the subject of the judgment by permitting it, the judgment below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles within the scope of the modified facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The crime of destroying and damaging property is established when exercising tangible power over all or part of the property owned by another person with the awareness that it infringes on the utility of the property owned by another person, thereby destroying or reducing its utility according to its original purpose.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Do1592 delivered on January 31, 1989, etc.). B.

Judgment

1. As seen earlier, in the trial, the size of the land owned by the victim damaged among the facts charged in the instant case was changed to approximately 93 square meters, and both the facts charged prior to the change and the altered facts charged are premised on the fact that the Defendant packages a part of the land owned by the victim in the door-si B as a concrete cement. As to this, the lower court, based on the aforementioned legal doctrine, shall detail the facts and circumstances stated in its reasoning.