A. Of the facts charged in this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty on this part of the charges, on the grounds that: (a) the front door, which is the object of the fact-finding of the property damage on November 24, 2013; (b) Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd., the 60th wall of Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. owned both TV, 32-TV, and 11 of the chemical portion; and (c) the crime of property damage cannot be established.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted that the actual owner of the apartment as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case was the actual owner of the apartment, and that the title trust was made to the victim, and that the 60-person walled TV, the 32-person TV, and the 111-minutes were purchased with the Defendant’s money, and that all the goods owned by the Defendant are the goods owned by the Defendant. In other words, the above apartment and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the records of the instant case, namely, ① the victim was investigated by the investigative agency, and the owner of the said apartment, asserting that the said goods were owned by himself, and that the victim was also the owner of the said apartment, and that the said apartment and others were the owner of the said apartment and the victim were the owner of the said apartment, and that the money presumed to have been transferred from the passbook under the name of the victim and the head of the Tong, which appears to have been used by the victim as the owner of the said apartment and others.

As such, the decision of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's above mistake of facts is accepted.