2. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion in detail under the title "a judgment on the defendant's assertion", which is similar to the grounds for appeal. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion in the judgment. The court below's above determination is alleged to the purport that ① the defendant was at the time when the defect, such as the front door door outer wall, etc., was occupied in the court, and after the defendant's director, it would damage the inside facilities of the defendant. However, although the defendant made a statement at the time of investigation by the prosecutor's office that he was well aware of the fact that he was at the time of the occupancy of the damaged part (Evidence No. 85 page of the evidence record) even though all of the photographs of the damaged part were verified, it is difficult to believe that the part of the damage of this case can not be confirmed through the internal photo of the house taken by the defendant for the purpose of showing it to the victim. In light of the above fact that the possibility that a person other than the defendant would have damaged only the same part, it is very little enough to recognize the fact that the defendant damaged the inside facilities of this case like the facts charged.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.