The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) As to each property damage, the Defendant’s act of making a scam using the parking door door of the E-unit housing (hereinafter “the instant apartment house”) constructed on the Hanam-si and 14 lots of land (hereinafter “the instant apartment house”) at the 1, 2, 3, 6 Dong, and 6 Dong (hereinafter “the instant building”) and the act of throwing a scam on the entrance door of 204 among the instant building cannot be deemed as an act detrimental to the utility of the instant building. Thus, the Defendant’s act does not constitute the act of damaging the instant building.

Even if the above act by the defendant constitutes damage, the defendant was to preserve the building of this case as a legitimate manager of the building of this case, and thus constitutes a justifiable act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of each damage to property, and the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) As to the infringement of a structure, the Defendant had a de facto authority not to distinguish the owner with respect to 204 of the instant building. At the time of the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant had already occupied the said 204 units, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have invaded upon the said 204 units.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of intrusion on a structure, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

3) As to interference with the business, the Defendant’s act of stigping a banner in the facilities of the instant tenement as indicated in the instant facts charged is all possible within the Defendant’s authority, and does not constitute an act of obstructing the business of the victim I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim I”) and the land trust in Korea (hereinafter “victim Korea Land Trust”) with the victim I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”).

Nevertheless, the lower court.