The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) (the court below) held that the damaged party C had the right to manage the building on the 11th floor EPS on the ground of B building, but otherwise held the right to manage the building on the B commercial building management.

Recognizing the facts, there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts, and the defendant's act of damaging the above 11th floor EPS room as an employee of B commercial building management group is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the act of political party even though it does not meet the legitimacy of the motive or purpose, the reasonableness of the means and method, balance of legal interests, urgency, and supplement.

2. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The Defendant is an employee of the B Commercial Building Management Group located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

B Business management group and C Co., Ltd. are now pending in the Seoul Central District Court due to the dispute over the management right of the above B commercial building.

On June 3, 2014, around 17:10 on June 3, 2014, the Defendant directed the 11st floor of Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B commercial building, and the ePS room managed by the victim C to replace the ePS room.

Accordingly, D has damaged the ePS room which requires an amount of 150,000 won by drilling the key hole of the ePS room.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant charges on the ground that the 111th floor EPS room on the ground of B building belongs to the management right of B commercial building management division as common areas of B building, and the Defendant only damaged kibbbbs based on the direction based on the management right of B commercial management division as the employee of B commercial management division, and the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act due to Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and thus, it constitutes a legitimate act due to the duty of Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

(1) At the time, the Defendant was an employee of B Commercial Building Management Group.

B The management body of commercial buildings shall be governed by the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings.