A. Fact misunderstanding 1) Although the Defendant had attached another paper on the notice attached by the victim, the Defendant did not have any effect, nor did he had any intention to destroy it.

2) The Defendant “pine” in the victim’s seat.

Although it was written as the mixed standard, there was no intention of insult.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of fact, the lower court: (a) made it impossible to find out the content of the publication by attaching another paper on the notice attached by the Defendant; and (b) made the victim during the Dog of the same representative meeting.

As long as it is recognized that the term "two years" has been read, the intent of the destruction and insult of documents is sufficiently recognized, so there is an error of misconception of fact that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. According to the argument and record of the instant case’s determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, the lower court appears to have reasonably decided by fully considering the various sentencing grounds asserted by the Defendant, and there is no special circumstance to ex post facto change the sentencing.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.