A. In light of the evidence of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that "The defendant's statement was made in the court below as the victim's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense of the defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense of the defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel.

나) 원심판결 이유를 기록과 대조하여 살펴보면 원심의 판단은 정당한 것으로 수긍할 수 있고, 거기에 피고인이나 변호인이 항소이유에서 주장하는 바와 같이 사실을 오인하여 판결에 영향을 미친 잘못이 있다고 할 수 없다. 2) 재물손괴의 점(원심 판시 제2항 범죄사실)에 대하여(피고인이 승용차를 걷어찼는지 여부) 가) 원심은 피고인이 수사기관에서 한 진술(피고인은 검찰 및 경찰에서 조사받으면서 “다방 배달차량을 보자 화가 나 발로 차고 주먹으로 두드렸다.”고 진술하였다

According to the estimates, field photographs, etc., the defendant is the defendant.