The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. In light of the fact that the period of posting the notice of the instant apartment that does not constitute the elements of the crime of property damage is ordinarily not more than five days, at the time the Defendant removed the notice of this case, the said notice was in a state where the utility was already achieved in writing. In light of the circumstances in which the Defendant removed the notice of this case, there was no intention to damage the Defendant’s property.

B. On November 19, 2014, the defendant, the representative of the 108 occupants' representative of the apartment building of this case, asserting a political party defense and a legitimate act, did not agree to dismiss 11 members including 5 and 11 members with low age limit among the existing security guards at the representative council of occupants on November 19, 2014, the public notice of this case contains the following contents: "a resolution has been made and made final and conclusive with the consent of all members," and thus, the defendant has damaged the defendant's reputation. The defendant, as the representative of the tenant, was removed from the public notice of this case in order to defend the current unfair infringement and to improve the problems in the unilateral procedure of dismissal against the above security guards, such act by the defendant constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Determination on the argument that the crime of damaging property does not constitute the element of the crime of damaging property (i.e., the intention of the son leader of property is aware of the fact that the property or document, which is the object of damage, is the fact that it is another person's lawsuit, unless there is no property value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do289, May 28, 1996). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, the defendant attached the written notice of this case to the victim E, and was well aware of the fact that it is the ownership of the victim.