The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, even though the Defendant ordered the completion of the automatic door installation work at the entrance of the first floor of the victim C’s building, he did not receive the payment of the remainder of the construction within the agreed period. On January 10, 2014, the Defendant installed the number locked on the said automatic text and set up the automatic door so that the said automatic door does not automatically close from January 20, 2014, where the said automatic door was ten days after the automatic subscription function, and did not terminate the said establishment. The Defendant did not damage the said automatic door and did not intend to damage the Defendant.

B. In light of the legal principles, at the time of installation of the aforementioned automatic text or at the time of installation of the aforementioned automatic number key, the Defendant requested the victim to pay the balance of construction works from January 20, 2014 to January 20, 2014, and the victim did not know about the payment of the balance of construction works.

As such, the illegality of the automatic suspension of operation is excluded because the victim's consent is obtained or the automatic suspension of operation is a justifiable act.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (200,000 won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the "nob" in the crime of destroying property in the relevant legal doctrine constitutes a case where the use of the property is harmed even in a case where the property cannot be used for its original purpose due to the act of destroying the property temporarily (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1057, Jul. 13, 1982, etc.). In addition, in recognizing the criminal intent of destroying the property, it does not necessarily have to have a planned intention of damage or actively wish to damage the property, but it is sufficient if there is a perception that the property would lose its utility against its owner's will (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1345, Jul. 28, 1992).