The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant removed illegally attached placards, which constitutes a justifiable act, and the Defendant did not have any awareness of illegality, and the instant banner has no property value.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 2 million sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment of the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles cannot be deemed to be an object of the crime of destruction because it is an illegal advertisement installed on the roadside without permission. Meanwhile, the term "conscising the utility of the crime of destruction of property" means to make an object unusable for its original purpose, and it also constitutes an act of making it unusable for temporary use (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Do2701, Dec. 7, 1993; 9Do899, Jun. 22, 1999). The case returned back to the case, even if the banner of this case was illegally installed on the road as alleged by the defendant, so long as it has the utility of using it as an object of the crime of destruction (No. 1 right No. 7, No. 31 of the evidence records), and the original purpose of the crime of destruction of property rights, which was lawfully removed and kept by the defendant, as evidence No. 138 of the crime of destruction of property rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da38813 of evidence).