It is not true that C does not speak, and in fact, C does not report false facts since it is true that it was delivered to the Defendant with the wind so that C can have the strings by force.

In addition, the defendant was assaulted by C to the police officer dispatched by the defendant

There is no fact that there is no statement.

2. The judgment of the court below asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case, and the court below rejected the above assertion by giving a detailed statement of the defendant's assertion and its decision under the title "the decision on issues" in the judgment of the court below. The following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① in light of the dialogue between the defendant and the police officer at the time of reporting 112, the defendant reported 112, stating that "the mobile phone was damaged due to the exercise of C's tangible power."

In light of the above, the defendant appears to have been aware of the other party's acceptance of such meaning. ② According to CCTV images taken at the time, according to the CCTV images, the defendant's act does not seem to have deteriorated his mobile phone. Rather, in a situation where there is no physical contact with C, as recognized by the court below, it is confirmed that the defendant was sleeping his cell phone, and ③ Police Officers called to the scene at the time of the instant case confirmed the defendant's accurate facts and intent of punishment several times in the court of the court below.