All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the damage of property caused by the lock cutting that the lower court acquitted, the lower court determined that it is sufficient to readily conclude that the locked was the victim’s own property because the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the locked was replaced, and therefore there was an intentional intent to damage the victim’s property. However, in light of the following: (i) the locked was voluntarily installed by the lessee without the consent of the Defendant, who is the lessor; (ii) the locked was necessary for the main operation; and (iii) the Defendant was a thing belonging to the victim’s territory; and (ii) the Defendant was unaware of the existing locked installed by the lessee before and after the commission of the crime, and was clearly distinguishable from the existing locked and clearly distinguishable from the external locked.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the court below which acquitted the defendant.

B. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant removed a banner without paying rent for up to eight months because, even if the Defendant ceased to use the building, the Defendant installed a banner on the side of the entrance of the building, stating that “the Defendant would repair the inside and operate the building again.”

Since such act is an act necessary for the management of a building as a lessor, it constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (200,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act, which is subject to punishment where the perpetrator damages “other’s property” as to the prosecutor’s assertion.