The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant committed an act as stated in the facts charged in order to perform the duty of restoration stipulated in the settlement protocol prepared between the victim and the former lessee C, and thus, the Defendant’s

2) The Defendant has the authority to remove facilities for the restoration of the original state with respect to a private letter or building (hereinafter “instant building”) as indicated in the lower judgment.

As such, there was a good reason to believe that there was a trust and good reason.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles

A. First, we examine whether the Defendant was authorized to legally remove the facilities installed in the instant building (the facilities installed by the Defendant and F).

The Defendant asserted the same purport as the above argument in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above argument based on its reasoning.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.

1) On July 9, 2013, the victim entered into a lease agreement on the instant building with C.

C The construction of facilities to operate the private house in the instant building was conducted.

On June 23, 2014, the victim and C had been settled on the following grounds: (a) the victim and C renounced the facility costs, beneficial costs, etc. regarding the building of this case; and (b) delay in the payment of rent on at least two occasions; (c) the building of this case was immediately restored to the original state and ordered the lessor to order the lessor; and (d) the lessor, if not restored to the original state, uses the remaining lease deposit for the restoration of the facility as the restoration cost.

2) On August 2014, C introduced E while delivering the instant building to the victim. On October 27, 2014, C entered into a lease agreement with the victim on the instant building.