A. In full view of the fact that there is no person other than the defendant who had access to the apartment of this case until the victim visited the apartment of this case to confirm the fact of damage and destruction, and that the act of damaging the apartment of this case appears to have occurred intentionally, and the defendant's motive to commit the crime is recognized in dispute between the victim and the victim at the time of this case, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges, although it can be recognized that the defendant damaged the apartment of this case as stated in the facts charged,

B. Since the Defendant returned to the Republic of Korea without returning the card key, etc. stated in the facts charged with the crime to the victim with the complaint against the victim, the Defendant was found not guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the intent of illegal acquisition of card key, etc. was recognized, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court’s judgment on the grounds of appeal is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant damaged property as stated in the facts charged, on the grounds that: (a) the victim’s legal statement in the lower court; (b) on the part of the instant facts charged, on-site photographs; (c) the entry details of pop key; (d) two copies of e-mail (Evidence No. 36); and (e) the investigation report (Korean translation of the statement submitted by the complainant); and (b) there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no other evidence to prove that there was the Defendant’s intent to commit embezzlement or illegal acquisition of cardk, etc. on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the victim’s legal statement in the lower court, etc. as to embezzlement