All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A did not destroy the fence (hereinafter “instant fence”) installed on the land (hereinafter “instant land”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, which is the site of the building (hereinafter “instant building”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and Defendant B did not have damaged the entrance and exit of the instant building (hereinafter “instant fence”).

B. Defendant B is the owner or lien holder of the instant building; Defendant A was delegated by Defendant B with the authority to manage the said building; thus, the Defendants did not intrude on the said building; even if Defendant A’s family affairs incidental to the instant wall, Defendant A did not destroy the said wall in line with the permission of Defendant B, even if it was incidental to the instant wall.

2. Determination

(a) 1-A;

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's duly admitted and investigated evidence, that is, the victim stated at the investigative agency that he damaged the wall of this case, and the defendant Gap also stated that the wall of this case was destroyed by the damage to the wall of this case in the court below, and the defendant Eul stated that the wall of this case was constructed on the land of Kimcheon-si owned by the Republic of Korea, but the wall of this case was constructed on the land of this case, but the victim stated that the defendant Eul was forced to open and enter the wall of this case among the employees of the guard company and the entrance of the entrance of this case, and that the victim was replaced by the victim after the defendant Eul entered the building of this case, it can be fully acknowledged as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

(b) subparagraph 1-b;

subsection (b).