Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. The court below rejected the above assertion by the defendant on the grounds of appeal on the same purport as the grounds of appeal, and on the grounds that the judgment on the grounds of appeal in detail states the judgment on the grounds of appeal in the part of the judgment of the defendant and counsel.

The evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and its reasoning are consistent with the reasoning of the court below. However, the "defendants" in Section 3 and Section 14 of the court below appears to be a clerical error of "victims".

In full view of the facts charged, the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that he damaged the victim’s vehicle to the extent that the flag’s repair cost is equivalent to 2,95,144 won by using the key of the victim’s vehicle, such as the Defendant’s vehicle as indicated in the facts charged in this case.

Therefore, the court below's finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the Defendant, and the Defendant's assertion is

3. The ex officio judgment of the court of appeals on sentencing may decide ex officio on the grounds that affect the judgment, even where the grounds for appeal are not included in the grounds for appeal, and where the defendant appealeds only on the grounds of mistake of facts, the judgment of the first instance may be reversed ex officio on the grounds of unfair sentencing,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do1021, Sept. 11, 1990). ex officio, the lower court’s sentencing with respect to the Defendant was examined, and the Defendant was in the trial, and the Defendant did not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual consent with the victim and the victim did not want the Defendant.