재물손괴
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the defendant did not destroy a motor vehicle owned by the victim, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s judgment (a punishment to be suspended and suspended: a fine of KRW 500,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) around 23:15 on April 27, 2013, the Defendant destroyed the instant facts charged by having the Defendant cut off several parts of the front, rear door, etc. of the E-motor vehicle owned by the victim D, which was parked in the instant area, on the ground that, while under the influence of alcohol, he was frighted in the front and rear door of the 113rd parking lots of the Busan Seo-gu C apartment, Busan, and on the ground that he was under the influence of alcohol.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it is recognized that the young female under the influence of alcohol at the time and place indicated in the facts charged destroyed a motor vehicle owned by D, and that the Defendant was found to be drunk in the above apartment parking lot around 01:12 following the following day.
Furthermore, as to how young women were damaged by the Defendant’s vehicle owned by the victim, F, who was a witness, was using her mother and her awareness at an investigative agency and a court below’s decision, and stated to the effect that the female would be aware of the Defendant. According to the investigation report duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the police officer K, who transferred the Defendant to his father, discovered the Defendant, was not using her mother and her awareness at the time when the police officer discovered the Defendant, and the Defendant was not using her mother and her awareness, and even around and around the police officer’s house, etc., it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was damaged by her statements by F alone, and all other evidence submitted by the prosecution were considered as comprehensive.