The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the damage to property

A. The crime of destroying and damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or when the utility of the property is harmed by other means. Here, the term "conscing the utility of the property" refers to making the property in a state where it can not be used for its original purpose of use due to actual or appraisal, and includes making the property in a state where it cannot be used temporarily (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 71Do1576, Nov. 23, 197; 92Do1345, Jul. 28, 1992; 93Do2701, Dec. 7, 1993). In particular, whether the act of throwing garbage in a certain object constitutes an act that impairs the utility of the object, the purpose and function of the object, the degree of harm to the aesthetic view of the object, the degree of harm to the user's inconvenience or resistance of the object, the purpose and difficulty at the time of the act and its degree of difficulty.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2590 Decided June 28, 2007). B.

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the crime of destroying and damaging property on the ground that: (a) the Defendant’s temporary impossibility of using the original eggs on the books used by the victim would impair the utility of the property.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the record, i.e., the original eggs of the defendant, at the glass board on the book, can be easily removed from this material, and the cost of removal is not likely to be incurred. After removal, ice construction or any trace remains on the book, and from the perspective of the general public.