The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant intended to return a little direction of the CCTV camera, but did not cut the CCTV camera lines because it was missing with a tent, and did not cut it thereafter.

Since CCTV camera was re-fixed, the defendant did not destroy CCTV camera.

On the other hand, since Eul, the head of the CCTV management office of this case, was established illegally without the resolution of the tenant representative meeting or the consent or permission of the user, it cannot be viewed as the joint ownership of the occupants, and since H, the president of the tenant representative meeting, had already ordered the removal of the CCTV, there was no intention to damage the property to the defendant.

2) The Defendant’s act of protecting personal information, etc. of the officers of the resident representative conference, who were illegally installed CCTV cameraed and supervised, constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding guilty of the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the defendant's act was properly explained, as well as the judgment of the court below, that the defendant's act was fixed to the ceiling of the CCTV of this case, which was attached to the ceiling of the conference room, was carried out only in one line attached to the ceiling, and that the CCTV camera's screen was not recorded any longer, and therefore, it was found that the CCTV camera's screen was not recorded any further, the judgment of the court below did not play a specific role as

The defendant damaged the CCTV camera of this case

The decision is judged.

On the other hand, H, the president of the tenant representative council, has removed CCTV prior to the instant case to E, the president of the tenant representative council.