The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In full view of D’s statements, etc., the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the remainder of the charges of this case committed in reliance on F’s legal statement inconsistent with D’s statements, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, although it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant interfered with the preparation of the electric inspection table by store which is worthy of protection under the Criminal Act by force, such as destroying the key of the entrance of the management office, etc.

Judgment

The summary of the facts charged in this case is a person who operates a lease business in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim D is the head of the management office of the above commercial building.

Although the Defendant requested the head of the management office of the above commercial building to see the victim, the victim's refusal to comply with the request, resulting in the victim's non-compliance with each other, and was punished by a fine by the police.

At around 12:30 on September 26, 201, the Defendant destroyed and damaged the property by using the door door locked and locked kept in the carnet in the victim's own market price of KRW 1,500 on the ground that he/she did not comply with the order of the head of the management office, even though he/she found it together with F, the Chairperson of the Commercial Building Operations Association, F, and G within the management office of the commercial building where the victim works in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, the Defendant removed the key of the door locked and locked amounting to KRW 1,500 for the market price of the victim.

The Defendant interfered with business, at the date, time, place, etc. set forth in the above paragraph (1) above, interfered with the victim’s preparation of the electric inspection and settlement slip by force by avoiding disturbance, such as harming the victim’s bath and destroying the entrance locking device.

Judgment

Since the crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when another person's property is damaged, concealed, or otherwise damaged its utility, the intention in the crime of causing property damage is the object of another person's property.