2. The judgment and the defense counsel held that the Defendant was sprinked by washing the presses as in his ordinary time and then sponsed with the paints inside the spons. However, the Defendant was sponsed at the entrance of the Defendant at the entrance of the Defendant, unlike his usual time, and the Defendant was merely sponsed at the entrance of the Defendant at the entrance of the Defendant, and there was no criminal intent for damage.

The argument is asserted.

As shown in the facts charged of this case, there are reports on the initial measure (damage of property), the receipt of damage, the scene photograph of damage, the E-statement, and the investigation report (the victim's relative telephone confirmation report).

Considering the damage scene photographs, the defendant's shop is a car color, etc., and there was an even number of the defendant's door.

The Defendant’s fat, immediately before the Defendant’s fating door, was fating the fat fat. However, it can be recognized that the Defendant’s fat fat, under the right upper part of the fat, was fat, mixed with the fat, and was batd away from the fat, and that the Defendant’s fat was fated away from the fat of the same color.

Only the above on-site photographs of the victim cannot confirm the form that the body or body mixed with a paint is spreaded by the body or body of the victim. Only if the body or body of the defendant is mixed with a part near the floor and the door, it is possible to confirm only if it is far away from the body or body of the defendant, the body or body of the defendant is inconsistent with the body or body of the defendant.

According to the first action report (property damage), a police officer dispatched to the site could not find a trace of cleaning or painting work by the defendant, but as above, he is mixed with a seal on the defendant's shop floor.