A. In relation to the damage of special property and special violence, according to CCTV images and the prosecutor's statement by the defendant, even though the defendant could be found to have sufficient facts with the defendant's vehicle under the defendant's willful negligence on the damage of property and assault, the court below's judgment which judged otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, at the time, the defendant was pushed down to the right side of the defendant's vehicle on the basis of the defendant's running direction. However, the defendant seems to move hand to the left side, which is the opposite direction, and the defendant merely moved to the left side of the vehicle, and the situation that the defendant moved to the victim by driving the vehicle on the right side of the vehicle or carried the vehicle to the victim rapidly, and the situation that the defendant moved to the victim by driving the vehicle to the right side of the vehicle is not verified, and the degree of the shock of the defendant's vehicle and the victim's ozone is very low, the defendant's intention is insufficient to recognize the damage of special property and the use of special assault. Thus, the prosecutor's determination of the court below is just and without merit.

3. In full view of all the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s main intent to determine the unfair argument of sentencing, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, circumstances after the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and sentencing of similar cases, including the case where the Defendant was punished by a fine for driving under drinking twice the previous two times, and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the sentencing of the similar case, the lower court’s punishment is consistent with the lower court in this case where there is no change in circumstances at the lower