For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant damaged the roof of the victim as stated in the facts charged, and rejected the allegation in the grounds of appeal concerning mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles disputing this.

The argument in the grounds of appeal that misleads facts is merely a matter of dispute over the judgment of the court of fact-finding on the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding. In light of the evidence duly admitted, the aforementioned judgment of the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the intent of the crime of causing property damage, consent of the victim and admissibility

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the amount of a fine is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, other grounds for appeal by the defendant do not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.