The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The question of mistake of facts was already awarded at the highest price in the auction procedure before the defendant destroyed it, and thereafter the successful bidder paid the entire successful bid, and the damaged glass was replaced by the new one by the defendant, and there was no property damage to the victim.

Nevertheless, since the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, it erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. In light of the legal principles, even though the Defendant agreed not to exercise the right of retention on the instant building in order to guarantee the Defendant’s right to preferential payment of the deposit money for lease on a deposit basis between the victim and H, it was intended for H to prevent the Defendant from taking measures to exercise the right of retention on the glass door of the instant building possessed by the Defendant in violation of the above agreed terms, and thus, the illegality of the act should be excluded. However, the lower court rejected such assertion by misapprehending the legal principles on the act of wording.

2. Determination

A. Following the court below's legitimately adopted and investigated the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the crime of destroying and damaging property is not the legal interest to be protected by the law, but the possession of the possessor of the right to use the property; ② Even if the successful bidder paid the successful bid in full after the act of damage was committed by the defendant, the owner of the object of auction has the obligation to deliver the object at the time of auction to the successful bidder; ③ even if the defendant returned to the original state again, it is merely the repayment of damage to the victim, who is the owner, after the occurrence of property damage.