The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) is that the defendant removed a restaurant signboard owned by the victim, but the signboard temporarily removed to prevent safety accidents due to the risk of fall outside the outer wall due to the remodeling of the building, and the defendant's failure to return the 10-minute signboard is due to the victim and his husband's abusiveation to the defendant and the her husband were punished. Thus, the defendant did not have any criminal intent to damage the property and interfere with the business.

However, the lower court found all of the facts charged of this case guilty, and so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated: ① the Defendant unilaterally removed the instant signboards without the consent of the victim while there was a dispute with the victim over the name of the D cafeteria; ② the victim’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s

Therefore, although the defendant tried to re-establish the complaint work vehicle signboards, he was parked his own vehicle in front of the D cafeteria so that the vehicle can not work.

The statement to the effect that “” was stated, ③ the Defendant suffered injury at the expense of the victim’s side at the time of the instant case, and that the Defendant was unable to move the vehicle at the hospital, which was 1 hour and 30 minutes of inspection and treatment, and that part of the vehicle was not parked as above, but the victim removed the signboard.