The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and four months, and for a defendant B, for eight months, respectively.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Defendant A’s crime: (a) the lower judgment 2014 Highest 1614(1) of the lower judgment was harmful to the Defendant as a legitimate lien holder of H (hereinafter “instant building”); (b) the Defendant was in dispute with the victims on July 28, 2013; and (c) on July 29, 2013, the Defendant did not appear at the site.

② The lower court’s crime of Article 1614 subparag. 2 of the High Order 2014: The Defendant, although having taken a steel fence, did not destroy it.

(3) The facts constituting a crime of Article 1769 (1) at the lower judgment’s order 2014 high order: The removal of a steel fence destroyed by the defendant is an illegal facility ordered by the astronomical City to remove it. Thus, the removal of it constitutes a justifiable act.

④ The facts constituting the crime of Article 1769(2) of the lower judgment: The instant building was occupied by the Defendant, and thus, did not interfere with the victim L’s business.

⑤ Criminal facts in the lower judgment 2014 Highest 384: The Defendant entered into a contract with N to transfer the right of retention and did not deceiving the victimO.

2) Criminal facts of Defendant B ① lower judgment 2014 high group 1614 subparag. 1: The Defendant believed joint Defendant A as a lien holder and entered the instant building according to A’s instructions.

② The lower judgment’s crime of Article 1614(2) of the lower judgment: The Defendant believed to be a steel fence installed by a joint Defendant A and dismantled it, and did not have the intent to damage others’ goods.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and Defendant B: imprisonment for eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor changes the name of the crime concerning the damage of Defendant A’s dangerous belongings from the trial of the party to “a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)” to “special damage”, and the applicable provision of the Act to “Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act” respectively.