(a) The damage of the damaged vehicle is not clear as to whether the damage of the damaged vehicle was caused by the Defendant’s act, such as the fact that the blade was defective in the glass part of the damaged vehicle, and the degree thereof has impaired the utility of the property;

It is not even to the extent to be seen.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (a) the paper tape was attached to the damaged vehicle on the ground that the Defendant interfered with the vehicle control and the access control; (b) the paper tape was installed on several parts of the damaged vehicle; (c) the victim’s defect in the glass can be predicted by anyone in light of the empirical rule; (d) the victim made a consistent statement with the investigative agency to the effect that the damaged vehicle was defective in the damaged vehicle by the Defendant’s act in this case from the lower court to the court; (e) the victim displayed the defective part of the damaged vehicle to the prosecution; and (e) the estimate of the damaged vehicle around January 26, 2016, which was issued by the Defendant’s act in this case.

B. The prosecutor in charge of the instant case, which is, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, is the damage of the vehicle glass at the time the victim led the damaged vehicle to the prosecution and displayed the defective part of the vehicle.