A. In fact, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the fact that he/she contains vinyl on the bat of the vehicle owned by the victim D and laid a tension safety pen on the bat of the vehicle owned by the victim, but the Defendant’s act does not damage the victim’s vehicle.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact, the facts in the judgment of the court below can be sufficiently recognized and there are other errors of law by mistake of fact.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In a case where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, taking into account the favorable circumstances favorable to the Defendant, determined a punishment by reducing the fine amount of the summary order (1.5 million won), and there is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age (the age of 87 years), degree of damage, the damage has not been recovered, economic circumstances, etc. as shown in the hearing of the court below and the party, the punishment imposed by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

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