A. By mistake of misunderstanding the fact, the fence and banner were damaged, and the defendant did not have any intention to damage the public property.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it seems that the defendant was able to have known the fact that the defendant, who was listed on the steel fence, might have damaged the aforementioned steel fence and the banner that was spreaded over the aforementioned fence, and thus, it seems that at least did not have any negligence on the damage to public property.

Therefore, there is no error in the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty.

B. The economic value of the public goods damaged by the defendant is not significant.

However, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, motive, means and consequence of the crime, degree of damage, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant, without permission, destroyed the instant steel fence and banner; (b) the Defendant did not have any damage to the instant steel fence and banner; and (c) there were several previous criminal records of fines.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit.