The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the damage of one’s own property on June 13, 2016, the Defendant attempted to cut the air-conditioning pipe with the consent of the victim, but all two were cut by mistake of the work engineer, and thus, the intent of the damage is not recognized.

On July 2, 2016, the victim did not comply with an agreement to deliver the store, and there was no room for choice otherwise because it did not contact with the victim, even though the victim agreed to deliver the store.

In addition, since there is no property value and part of the concealed goods were returned to the victim, the defendant concealed the property.

shall not be effective.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged in this case guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In an improper preliminary determination of sentencing, the punishment sentenced by the court below (3 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was found to have consented to cut off one air-conditioning pipe on June 13, 2016 is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s direct operation was given to the parts at the site of removing air-conditioning pipes, the Defendant was in the situation where the air-conditioning pipe was required for the extension of the building at the time, and the restoration was made after receiving the victim’s claim of mistake.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

2) On July 2, 2016, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the leased property and invaded on a structure; (b) caused the lessee’s failure to perform the act despite the date on which the victimized person promised to deliver the store; (c) thereby cutting off the locks of the store inevitably; and (d) caused other things.