A. In the case of the crime No. 123 of the 2016 High Order 123, the Defendant did not have damaged the fixed skin for the conclusion of the electronic device.

In January 2015, the damage traces of electronic device was generated in the process of concluding a fixed spons with a voluntary tool, which is not a tool for the exclusive use of electronic device, at the defendant's office located near the defendant's office.

Accordingly, if the fixed string of the electronic device continues to open, and if the hand-on device and the attachment are reduced to more than a certain interval, the string vibration does not work properly, and even though the request for confirmation or repair was made to the protective observation office, the protective observation office did not accept the Defendant’s request.

Accordingly, the Defendant separated the fixed skin by hand in order to inform that there is anything wrong with the electronic device, and gave a warning of damage.

As such, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charges of damaging an electronic device by misunderstanding the fact, even though the Defendant had intentionally damaged the electronic device.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

가. 사실 오인 주장에 대한 판단 적법하게 증거조사를 마쳐 채택한 증거들을 종합하면, 날카로운 물건으로 찍힌 것과 같은 모양의 움푹 파인 흔적과 장치 내부의 돌기의 산 모양이 부러져 있는 전자장치의 훼손 흔적, 법무부에서 지급 받은 부직포가 부착되어 있는 전용 체결도구만을 사용하는 보호 관찰 관의 전자장치 교체 방법, 2015. 2. 10. 범행 전후의 피고인의 언행 등 원심에서 설시한 사실들이 모두 인정된다.

In addition, on January 2015, the defendant is not a dedicated Gu, but a dedicated Gu, by finding the defendant and replacing auxiliary scams.