A. As to Defendant A’s damage to property, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged that the Defendant destroyed the taxi by misunderstanding the fact that the taxi was destroyed and damaged.

B. As to each of the Defendants’ joint injury, the Defendants did not have inflicted an injury on the victim. However, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the facts and thereby causing the injury to the victim.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to Defendant A’s assertion on the damage of property, in particular, according to the victim’s consistent statement, photographs, receipts, etc., it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant destroyed the taxi by walking the front and rear door of the taxi as shown in the facts charged.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the Defendants’ joint injury, and in particular, according to the victim’s consistent statement and medical certificate, etc., it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the victim, such as climatic salt, etc., as in the facts charged.

The above assertion by the Defendants cannot be accepted.

3. Accordingly, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals are without merit.