1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the facts alleged in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance and the part concerning subparagraph 2-B of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are used as follows.

2. The premise in paragraph 1 of the part to be dried has been written by following formula:

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Plaintiff et al. owned or resided in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cown as shown in the attached Form, and the Defendant, as the owner of the above Carryover, removed the above house and newly built a new building on October 1, 2015 by awarding a contract to D for the removal of the above house and the construction of the new building.

B. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with an investigative agency against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant destroyed the front door door, the front door door door, and the front door door door of the entrance, and the investigative agency charged the Defendant with summary indictment on the ground that the Defendant destroyed the front door, the entrance door, and the front door of the front door 30.

C. As to this, the Defendant filed a request for formal trial (this Court Decision 2016No2422), and changed the facts charged to the effect that “F” appears to be a clerical error in the “F” of 15-1 (business registration certificate) the co-ownership of CBD sectional owners, and the “F.” The number of proxy seat 30 was destroyed.

On July 5, 2017, this Court rendered a judgment of not guilty of the facts charged above on the ground that "the removal of an existing wall and fence was indispensable to remove or damage the Dagra and the entrance part was damaged, and the substitute seat was partially damaged, but it cannot be readily concluded that there was a criminal intent to commit property damage."

E. In the appellate trial of the above judgment, the part of the facts charged that “the damage was caused by destruction of the number of copies 30 of the paintings, the front door door and the front door door, and the front door 30 of the E-owned agency capacity” was modified to the effect that “the market price damaged and damaged the aesthetic team,” and the appellate court convicted him

The appeal is dismissed.