The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not have impaired the utility of the number key, and the Defendant changed the number key of the electronic locking device to communicate with the victim, so there is no intention to damage property.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant committed the instant crime by failing to pay a reasonable period of rent, and the Defendant’s act is dismissed as an act that does not go against the social norms.

(c)

The sentence of the court below against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the term “where the utility is harmed” in the crime of property damage includes not only cases where goods, etc. cannot be used for their original purpose, but also cases where goods, etc. cannot be used for their original purpose as a temporary act (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9219, Nov. 25, 2016). In recognizing the criminal intent of property damage, there is sufficient awareness that one’s act would lose the utility of property owned by another person (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2307, Sept. 8, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, in the case of the instant case, the user’s password was automatically opened when the user inputs the password, and the Defendant’s act could no longer open a door, i.e., the victim, who is the user, without any further opening a door.

In addition, even according to the defendant's assertion, this purport is that "the defendant thought that the defendant would have contacted the injured party with the degree of the act detrimental to the utility of number key as stated in the judgment below."