Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of destroying and damaging property is not guilty. The charge of assault among the facts charged in the instant case is dismissed.

The acquittal portion

1. On January 9, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 00:30 on the facts charged, the victim E tried to record a mobile phone in a D cafeteria operated by the Defendant located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon; (b) and (c) was damaged by a 1.3 million Aphone, which is the victim’s possession, to damage the victim’s 5-phone from a wooden customer, thereby impairing its property utility.

2. The crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when it damages or conceals another person's property or damages its utility by other means. Here, the phrase "conscising the utility of property" refers to de facto or emotional harm that makes it impossible to use another person's property for its original purpose of use, and includes making the property in a state in which it cannot be used temporarily (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2590, Jun. 28, 2007). Based on this legal principle, the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court and duly examined by the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2590, Jun. 28, 2007). Even in the case of F or G (victim's daily act)'s legal or police statement, even if the defendant did not appear at the first place, such as the facts charged, ② It appears that there is no particular trace that the victim did not use the mobile phone after the above temporary use of the mobile phone.