A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that the Defendant damaged a victim D-owned motor vehicle on April 16, 2013, as indicated in the facts charged, based on the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the acquittal portion, and the testimony of the lower court is admissible as evidence in the testimony of the witness G of the lower court, and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On April 16, 2013, at the front of Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, the Defendant destroyed and damaged the front door of the E-high speed car, which is the victim D. 2) The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that: (i) the police protocol against the Defendant denies its content; (ii) the fact that the Defendant could not be used as evidence since he denies it; (iii) the statement of the witness G of the lower court was made in the investigative agency; (iv) the fact that the Defendant could not be admitted as evidence because it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s confession was made under particularly reliable circumstances; and (iii) the other statement of the investigative agency and the lower court and the court of the lower court are insufficient to acknowledge that the damage in the facts charged was caused by the Defendant’s act; and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. Paragraph 1 of Article 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act includes a person who has investigated or participated in the investigation of a defendant as a suspect before a public prosecution by a person other than the defendant is instituted.

If a statement made at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial contains a statement of the criminal defendant, it shall be proved that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances.