The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant intentionally damaged property, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the crime of causing property damage, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In the facts charged, the Defendant: (a) was a member of the company D who entered into a new building management contract with the management body of the building newly created in C in the commercial building; and (b) the sectional owners of the victim C building who were managing the existing commercial building were the management body of the building that was an illegal organization; (c) accordingly, the said building management contract was illegal; and (d) refused to take over the business for

around 16:30 on July 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) opened the entrance gate of the 1st underground floor management office, and paid the same month after the Defendant opened the key gate on the ground that the said victim did not interfere with the transfer of business for the management of the building as above;

6. Around 10:00, the key hole was laid down, and caused damage to the effect that the sum of the repair cost was approximately KRW 270,000,000, by destroying the entrance, knife, knife, and auxiliary key of the said C Underground Second Ground Management Office.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to deem that the Defendant had a criminal intent to destroy and damage property, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

1"First C management body meeting" is held.