The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant resisted D with respect to the removal of one’s banner and the installation of a G banner on the instant Ba, and as such, D’s removal was conducted with the permission of G, and the Defendant did not have a criminal intent to commit property damage to the said banner, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. From around 2011, the Defendant offered a loan to D for the construction cost of the instant loan, and received and kept the key of the instant loan, along with D’s certificate of personal seal impression, passbook, etc. after obtaining the authority from D to sell, sell, and arrange the instant loan to repay the loan. In light of such circumstances, the Defendant did not have any reason to steal the key of the instant loan, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and did not err by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether the defendant had no criminal intent to commit the damage to property, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (1) The defendant first requested D to sell the loan of this case to the defendant, but the dispute arose in relation to embezzlement of the sales contract amount, etc., and the defendant requested D to sell the loan of this case to the victim G around April 10, 2012; and (2) accordingly, the victim posted a banner on April 2012, stating that D and the victim did not allow D to remove the above banner consistently. In full view of the above facts of recognition, the defendant was not in distinction with D and the victim's authority to sell the loan of this case to the victim, etc. was delegated to D and the victim.