The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's act of connecting the urban gas pipelines of the housing complex newly constructed by saving part of the urban gas pipelines of the case by the victims who are the occupants of GJbyra constitutes "material destruction", and as a result, it should be evaluated that the above pipelines cannot be used for the original purpose", and that there was an intention to cause property damage to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes a crime of causing property damage sufficiently enough, but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to the facts charged of this case is erroneous by mistake of facts or by misapprehending legal principles.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. A. Around 15:00 on June 29, 2013, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant: (a) ordered the workers E to provide urban gas in a newly-built housing complex; and (b) caused the Defendant to damage the above pipelines by cutting off part of the city gas pipelines owned by the occupants, such as the victim F, and allowing them to connect the city gas pipelines of the newly-built housing complex by having the Defendant connect the city gas pipelines of the newly-built housing complex.

B. The court below held that the crime of causing damage to property constitutes a case where the act of causing damage not only makes the goods in a state where they cannot be used for their original purpose, but also temporarily make the goods in a state where they cannot play a specific role (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7219, Dec. 22, 2006). The evidence submitted by the prosecutor in the records of this case is merely that the defendant performed gas pipeline connection work without the consent of the owner or reporting as prescribed by the Act, and further, it is not sufficient to recognize that the gas pipeline of this case has lost its utility to the extent that it constitutes "damage" as prescribed by Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise.