성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)
A. According to the statement of the victim A and the receipt that accepted the damaged vehicle in relation to the crime of causing property damage on February 22, 2016, according to the mistake of facts (as to the acquitted portion of the reasons), the Defendant destroyed the damaged vehicle so that the amount equivalent to 340,000 won in total of the market price would be caused by enormous unloading of the front glass and hedge of the damaged vehicle in the temporary border.
Nevertheless, the defendant got off the Hdart.
The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the damaged part of the crime of the destruction of property only as "prehion of glass" and "market price repair cost" on the ground that it is difficult to prove that the repair cost has been equivalent to KRW 340,000,000, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the KRW 300,000 of a fine) is unreasonable on the ground that it is excessively unfasible.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. On February 22, 2016, the facts charged in the instant case (the part concerning the crime committed around February 22, 2016) the Defendant destroyed the Defendant’s repair charges worth KRW 340,000 in total market price by putting the unreshing portion on the bottom of the market price, which is the joint ownership of the Defendant and the victim, in which the Defendant and the victim were in its place, from Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si’s petition No. H. 22, 2016. The Defendant destroyed the Defendant’s repair charges of KRW 340,000,000 in front of the I cargo vehicle owned by the victim parked in the place.
The lower court recognized that “the front glass of the freight vehicle was enormous and damaged to ensure that the market price is an aesthetic repair cost.”
B. The lower court and the lower court determined the Defendant’s hedging on the damaged vehicle.
It is difficult to see that the repair cost of KRW 340,00 has been proved without any reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to prove it, and the reason is not guilty.