(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The principle of strict construction of criminal statutes does not always require the narrowest possible interpretation of a criminal statute. See, e.g., State v. Ford, 397 N.W.2d 875, 879-80 (Minn.1986) (criminal statute interpreted broadly); State v. Andow, 386 N.W.2d 230, 232-33 (Minn.1986) (same). A mortgage continues to function after the foreclosure sale. See Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Junge, 458 N.W.2d 698, 700 (Minn.App.1990) (title after foreclosure not acquired until all rights of redemption have expired); Kooda Bros. Constr., Inc. v. United Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Alexandria, 400 N.W.2d 407, 409 (Minn.App.1987) (foreclosing mortgagee not barred from enforcing *152mortgage covenant). The mortgagee purchasing at the foreclosure sale has a security interest until the period of redemption expires. See Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc’y v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 294 Minn. 126, 181, 200 N.W.2d 181, 184 (1972) (security interest of mortgagee or purchaser at foreclosure sale is to be protected and preserved).
When Zacher removed the fixtures a day before the redemption period expired, the property was still subject to a mortgage and the bank had a security interest. Zacher’s conduct fits within the literal terms of the statute. See Minn.Stat. § 609.615(2) (1990) (defeating security on realty). Moreover, it would unduly frustrate the intent of the statute to exempt the malicious destruction of property after the foreclosure sale, while the mortgagor has a right of possession. I would affirm Zacher’s conviction.