A. As to the facts charged of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, there is no fact that the Defendant inflicted injury upon the victim D as stated in the facts charged.

As to the damage of property among the facts charged in the instant case, the fact that the Defendant removed a license, etc. for the mother, but this was an inevitable act to prevent the damage of leakage in the publicly notified telecom operated by the Defendant due to defective construction work, and even though the Defendant paid compensation to the F or returned the above goods, it is harsh to punish the Defendant for the above act, since the above victim did not comply with it.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below as evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim D has consistently stated the fact that he suffered sacratic from the defendant from the investigative agency up to the court of the court of the court below, and ② the injury diagnosis report prepared by the doctor I belonging to H Hospital (the injury diagnosis report submitted as evidence as to the injury of September 3, 201) stating that Byung’s name stated “the sacratum and tension of sacrat, the sacratum, the sacratum, the other parts of the sacratum, the sacratum, the sacratum, the causes of the injury, and the degree of the injury “under the sacratum and sacrat,” the injury diagnosis report prepared by the doctor K (the injury diagnosis report submitted as evidence for the injury of September 7, 2011).