재물손괴
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. When misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant unilaterally correct the entrance and exit door used by the Defendant and removed it without choice to allow the Defendant to access. Such an act constitutes a justifiable act which is socially acceptable.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of charges. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The defendant argued to the effect that it is similar to the reasons for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail under the title of "decision on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel". In comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant. 2) The argument of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is without merit.
B. According to the records on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court determined the punishment in consideration of various sentencing grounds, such as the fact that mistakes are not divided, the circumstances leading up to the commission of the crime, the fact that competition and locks have been returned, the fact that there was no record of punishment as well as the fact that there was no record of punishment exceeding the fine, and the fact that there was no record of punishment exceeding the fine. 2) In the trial, there was no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court, and even considering the various sentencing reasons revealed in the oral argument, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
3..