The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

The pronouncement of sentence against B shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and did not have a legitimate lien that could possess the container gambling of this case. The CCTV of this case was owned by G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”). The lower court did not have filed a complaint on the damage related to the container gambling. The CCTV of this case is owned by G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”).

On the other hand, the defendants' actions covered with a vinyl cannot be deemed as an act that undermines the utility of property as referred to in the crime of damage, and there is no intention to damage to the defendants.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding guilty of the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine does not include the part of the facts charged in light of the overall text, content, and purport of the indictment that “the public offering to damage the container stuff owned by the victim”

Based on the judgment, this part is deleted and it is recognized as criminal facts such as criminal facts.

Therefore, the part related to container gambling is not included in the crime of the lower judgment, and CCTV is clearly stated as G ownership.

Meanwhile, the crime of damage to property is established when a special media record, such as another person’s property, document, or electronic record, is destroyed, concealed, or otherwise impairs its utility. Here, where the utility is damaged by any damage, concealment, or other means, it includes not only the case of changing goods, etc. into a state in which they cannot be used for its original purpose but also the case of undermining the utility by temporarily making them unusable as a material destruction

Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9219 Decided November 25, 2016 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9219).