The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) A worker who was in a misunderstanding room for fact;

Since TV is owned by the defendant, it is not possible to be the object of the crime of damage to property, the court below found the said TV as owned by the victim and found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (an amount of KRW 400,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On February 21, 2016, the Defendant: (a) damaged the part of the instant charges to cover KRW 10,00 of the repair cost by cutting off all TV sets owned by the victim E on the ground that the victim E was corrected in the front door of the factory management, on February 14, 2016.

B. 1) The lower court’s determination is based on the Defendant’s partial statement, witness E, F, G’s legal statement, field photograph, and certificate (share investment contract) as evidence, and in light of the purpose of TV known by the aforementioned evidence, TV was transferred along with the transfer of ownership when the factory was transferred.

and the defendant was aware of at least this degree of perception.

On the ground that it is reasonable to view this part of the facts charged, the lower court convicted.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination on the party deliberation reveals the following: (a) the instant TV was purchased in the name of K, which was one’s wife, and donated to the Defendant to the Defendant; (b) the Defendant was using part of the business affairs of the factory even after the Defendant transferred the factory to the Defendant; (c) the Defendant was also using the second floor of the factory where the said TV was installed; and (d) the victim E stated to the effect that the said TV was not separately accepted at the lower court’s court court’s court court’s trial.

Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is either the ownership of TV in this case or the factory.