The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that “the Defendant removed the banner as indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant banner”), but the Defendant constituted an organization “P” with others, as well as posting the banner as indicated in the facts charged, and continued to commit a crime against “Igman’s church to which the Defendant belongs” (hereinafter “instant church”). As such, the Defendant’s act is aimed at defending the present unfair infringement of the victim’s current status, and constitutes legitimate acts, which do not constitute self-defense or contravene social norms.”

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in the judgment below, i.e., (i) whether the banner of this case constitutes the "relic" which is the object of the crime of causing property damage, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case by taking into account the following facts: (a) the property which is the object of the crime of causing property damage does not necessarily have an objective monetary exchange value; and (b) the owner has subjective value; and (c) even the banner installed for the purpose of the crime of causing property damage should protect the owner's use until it is confiscated in accordance with the procedure; and (b) the fact that it was not impossible for the defendant to take legal measures such as criminal charge, civil liability, removal order by an administrative agency, or imposition of a fine for negligence for the removal of banner at the time of the crime of causing property damage; and (d) the defendant's act of removing the banner by directly and indirectly using the aforementioned direct and lawful remedy cannot be deemed as legitimate self-defense or legitimate act.