A. In relation to the crime of damaging property by mistake of fact, the Defendant only closed the entrance door, but did not open the entrance door or damaged the door by hand and the door.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, D and F in the lower court court’s court court’s trial witness the scene where the Defendant destroyed the door.

E made a statement, and E returned to hear sound that leads to a door, and there was a door that the defendant was on the side and the door was in a department.

According to the fact that the statement was made at the time, E and F made a statement clearly that there was a door at the scene. The defendant's statement that no door was recorded at the time is believed, that the statement made by the defendant is difficult to believe, that the sound that the statement made by the defendant was shotly shot or shotly in the recording file (38 minutes of the recording file which was submitted by the prosecutor) and that people outside India made some statements to the effect that they closed the door by shoting people outside India, and that D would not interfere with the meeting of the defendant, and it appears probable that the defendant would have committed an act, such as cutting the door door to D, with the intention of having the defendant be subject to criminal punishment, and that the defendant intentionally damaged the entrance after having the defendant make a false statement after having the defendant make a false statement, but that the defendant made a false statement to the effect that the defendant damaged the entrance of the defendant under the circumstances where the defendant made a false statement and made a false statement to the effect that he would not have the defendant punished the above act.