A. The Defendant shouldered one door glass door, but there is no fact that two windows are broken on the side surface of a restaurant.

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, one year and six months of suspended sentence, and one year and six months of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, especially witness F's testimony (Evidence No. 37 of the evidence record) and part of the court below's oral statement (No. 45 pages of the record of the court below) to the purport that "at the time of this case, there was no part around the time of this case, and there was no memory in drinking," etc., it can be acknowledged that the defendant has broken not only one window of the restaurant entrance, but also two windows adjacent to the restaurant as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. Although the amount of damage from property damage (100,000 won) is not significant with respect to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant did not take measures to recover damage even though the victim had made considerable efforts to rectify the damage situation.

Although a criminal record of violence has been committed several times, the need to protect and observe violent crimes is also recognized.

Considering the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable and is too unreasonable in light of various circumstances that serve as the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and relationship with the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.