The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the apartment of the victim C is owned jointly by the defendant and the victim, and that apartment is owned jointly by the locking device of the present door of the apartment. Thus, even if the defendant removed and paid the key door door, it does not constitute property damage. At that time, the defendant visited the above apartment to prevent the defendant from entering the apartment with the goods located in the above apartment. At that time, the defendant visited the apartment with the police officer and the lawyer to prevent the defendant from entering the apartment. Thus, the crime of property damage is not established.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below whether the locking device of this case is the subject of property damage, that is, the defendant and the victim are co-owners of the apartment of this case as the husband and wife. However, at the time of committing the crime of this case, the defendant was in a divorce lawsuit with the victim and was living in other places than the victim and the victim were living in the apartment of this case. On the other hand, the locking device of the apartment of this case constitutes another person's property as co-ownership of the defendant and the victim, which is the subject of property damage.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

B. The following circumstances revealed by the Defendant’s assertion as to whether the act constitutes a justifiable act, which were duly adopted and investigated by the lower court. In other words, at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was filing a divorce lawsuit in a separate state with the victim, and the Defendant was refused to open the victim’s door, but was rejected, and the Defendant was not suspended even if the Defendant was requested to suspend the act by the victim.