The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant’s act of falling short of the “right” on the first floor of the building above the above building with a sacker pressle, among the disputes over the ownership of the building in this case with the victim, is not only a temporary harm to the exterior and the utility of windows of the above building, but also constitutes a crime of causing property damage, which harms the aesthetic view of the building and disturbs the users of the building, and thus constitutes a crime of causing property damage, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine

2. Determination 1) The crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or where the utility thereof is harmed by other means. Here, the term "conscising the utility of the property" refers to making the property in a situation where it can not be used for its original purpose in fact or by appraisal. It includes making the property in a state where it cannot be used temporarily. In particular, whether the act of scisfing on the wall of a structure or posting a notice constitutes an act of damaging the utility of the structure, such as the use and function of the structure, the impact of the act on lighting and lighting of the structure, the degree of harm to the aesthetic view of the structure, the difficulty and difficulty of restoration to the original state, the purpose and continuity of the act, and the situation at the time of the act, etc., shall be determined in accordance with social norms by considering the following circumstances, comprehensively considering the legal principles as a whole, including the victim's temporary appearance and the evidence of the court below at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do257.