In a consistent manner, the victim of misunderstanding of facts and E consistently claims that the defendant had consistently damaged the digital language register installed at the victim's house entrance to use the locks because the digital language register has not been operated properly, and in light of evidence such as the photograph of damage, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant damaged the digital language register that is owned by the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this portion is erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence of the court below's decision on unfair sentencing (100,000 won of fine) is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

The summary of this part of the charges of mistake of facts is that the defendant collected fire extinguishings from the victim's house entrance and damaged digital drawings, which are owned by the victim.

Accordingly, there are statements made by the victim in the police, statements made by the victim E in the investigative agency and the court of the original trial, statements made by the F in the court of the original trial, investigation reports (Evidence No. 27 pages), and damaged photographs (Evidence No. 145 pages of the record).

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., E, the fact that it was stated that it did not replace the digital records even after one year has passed since the occurrence of the instant case while the digital records were damaged (if digital records were damaged and not operated normally, it would not be possible to use them as they were without repair or replacement during the instant period). ② ② It is deemed that F, a police officer dispatched to the site at the time of the instant case, stated that it was not a matter that can clearly confirm that the digital records were damaged even though there was no error in opening the entrance at the court of the court below, and that it was damage to the digital records.