The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 15:00 on June 29, 2013, the Defendant destroyed the above pipelines by having his employees E take an instruction in order to supply urban gas in a newly-built housing complex, by cutting off part of the urban gas pipelines in the market price, such as the victim F, etc., shared by the occupants of G Borrowing, and allowing them to connect them with the urban gas pipelines in a newly-built housing complex.

2. In the crime of causing property damage, the crime of causing property damage not only changes the gas pipeline into a state in which it cannot be used for its original purpose, but also causes damage to its utility (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7219 Decided December 22, 2006). In this case, as to whether the "effective" of the gas pipeline owned by the victim was damaged due to the act such as the act recorded in the defendant's facts charged, there are health and evidence, such as witness F's testimony, police statement, F statement, etc. However, although the main contents of the gas pipeline connected with the gas pipeline without the consent of the owner or the procedure of reporting as prescribed in the law, it is difficult to view the fact that the gas pipeline in this case was in a state in which it cannot play a specific role temporarily even if it was impossible to use it as evidence for conviction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the gas pipeline in this case falls short of the utility of Article 36 of the Criminal Act due to the act committed by the defendant.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime of destruction under the Criminal Code even though it is separate from the establishment of a crime of violation of the Urban Gas Business Act.