The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The wall of this case is installed on the land owned by the defendant, and is in conformity with the land owned by the defendant (Article 256 of the Civil Act), and thus, the act of the defendant to leave the wall does not constitute an act of damaging another's property.

B. The Defendant, with the awareness that the victim D installed the instant wall without permission on the land owned by the Defendant, was removed from the wall installed without permission, or with the awareness that the wall owned by the Defendant was removed. As such, there was no criminal intent to commit property damage.

C. Even if the Defendant destroyed a wall owned by the victim, the amount of damage was excessively high on the ground that it is not reliable.

2. Determination

A. According to the following: (a) the fence of this case, which was destroyed by the Defendant on March 7, 2012, is either installed on the land owned by the victim, or installed over the land owned by the victim, or on the land owned by the Defendant, and does not seem to correspond to the land owned by the Defendant (Evidence Record 71, 72, 73 pages). Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's assertion that the fence of this case was installed on the land owned by the victim, and owned by the victim, or installed over the land owned by the defendant, and constituted the sharing of the victim and the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion that there was no criminal intent to commit property damage is without merit.

C. Also, according to the witness D, E, and H’s legal statement and the statement in two copies of the receipt (receipts), the cost of re-installation of the instant fence and the cost of repair of the outer wall is added.