The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) The instant house is owned by L Co., Ltd., or E, the owner of the instant house, transferred the right to dispose of the instant house to L, and the Defendant removed the instant house upon delegation from L. Thus, the crime of property damage is not established or there is no intention to commit the crime.

2) That the instant housing was not owned by L Co., Ltd. or was not transferred the right to dispose of the housing

Even if the defendant received a letter of delegation from L legal team to remove the building of this case, the defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime since he believed it and removed the building of this case.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on the pertinent house at the time of the removal of the instant house, the Defendant also argued that L corporation was the person having the right to file a lawsuit or disposal of the instant house at the time of the removal of the instant house, and that L was the person having the right to file a lawsuit or disposal of the instant house at the time of the purchase of G from E in the original city, as in the same manner as the grounds for appeal of this case were the same as the grounds for appeal of this case.

Therefore, the lower court stated in detail the grounds for the “determination on the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion” and held that L was also transferred at the time of the purchase of G land from E at the time of the original state.

On the other hand, the court below's judgment is justified in light of the records and thorough comparison of the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

Therefore, at the time of the removal of the instant house, the owner of the housing or the right to dispose of the housing is not L corporation but the heir of the networkO who constructed the said housing, namely, the victim E and D.

2) The Defendant, who committed the instant removal of the instant house, ordered L Co., Ltd. to remove the G Ground Building at the time of the original state.

Now, L.S. corporation.