The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, at the time, installed an additional lock at the top of the entrance door door door 104 (hereinafter “instant lending”) of the Shinsi-si Mara Mara at the time. However, in the process, there is no fact that the Defendant opened the entrance door door and intruded on the said door, such as this part of the facts charged.

(2) As to the damage of property, the Defendant only installed additional locks on the right upper corner of the entrance entrance, and did not replace the existing lock of the entrance, such as this part of the facts charged.

In particular, it is difficult to deem that at the time there was an intentional intention to damage the entrance of the defendant, since the installation of the locks on the right upper corner of the entrance was only for the purpose of preventing the victim from shipping away things from the above gate.

(3) Nevertheless, the court below found all of the facts charged in this case guilty, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won of fine) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the content that “the locked knicks are replaced with other locks” in the first and second of the charges on the damage of property at the trial. This Court permitted this and changed the part of the charges, and thus, the part on the damage of property in the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court even if there is a ground for reversal of authority as above. Thus, the defendant's argument about the changed part of the judgment and the remaining part are asserted.