A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, despite recognizing the fact that the Defendant destroyed or damaged the television owned by the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts: (a) the Defendant entered the instant her female-friendly Ha with around 23:00 on February 15, 2015, and changed the room around 12:0 on February 16, 2015 to 306; and (b) the Defendant moved to 306 on February 16, 2015; and (c) the Defendant retired from the instant her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

The facts of contact and the fact that the television of this case 301 appears to have been destroyed by a strong external shock, but on the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, including ① Defendant and her women-friendly job offering H, who need to take a bath while lodging in the instant telecom, changed the room to 301, which had no desire to take a bath at first 306.

Defendant and the above H made a statement, and there was an enemy demanding to request a bath room in the course of using the instant Moel several times, and ② immediately after the Defendant left from the instant 301, two ophers cleaning the instant Mour 301 when the victim F et al. did not confirm whether the instant Maur 301 was broken out, etc., and thereafter, before receiving contact with other customers, the victim F et al. to check the Maur 301 television conditions before receiving contact that the Maur 301 television conditions were broken out, the Defendant lost the Maur 301, and the customer was out of the Maur.