The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be deemed as an object of the crime of destruction of property since the written public notice of this case is illegal notices, and the defendant thought that, after being posted the written public notice of this case, it was removed by the occupants, they should have seen and removed the written public notice, and there was a perception that all or part of the written public notice of this case would infringe the utility of the written public notice

shall not be deemed to exist.

Even so, the court below rejected the Defendant’s removal from the public notice of this case without permission.

As such, 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 the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, insofar as it constitutes property in the crime of property damage under the Criminal Act, it cannot be said that it does not constitute an object of the crime of property damage even if it is an illegal advertisement or illegal notice installed on the roadside without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do899, Jun. 22, 1999, etc.). Even if the written notice is illegal, it is the object of the crime of property damage as long as it has the usefulness as it is an object of property damage. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit (B). However, it seems that the defendant argues that "the defendant's attorney is the owner of separate ownership, and thus removal of the written notice constitutes a justifiable act." However, the defendant's removal of the written notice of this case without following lawful procedures such as obtaining permission from the management office. It satisfies all the requirements such as reasonableness, urgency, and supplement of the act of a political party.

In addition, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion on this part can be recognized as willful negligence of damage to property at least by the Defendant.