2. The Defendant has the same assertion as the Defendant alleged in the lower court.

The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail by examining the Defendant’s argument.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and, in particular, ① the damaged parts of the victim vehicle (Evidence Nos. 9, 10 pages), the lower court’s judgment is justifiable in determining that the Defendant destroyed the victim vehicle, as stated in its reasoning, in light of the following: (a) who intentionally parked the front and rear parts of the vehicle in front of the front and rear parts of the vehicle; (b) who accessed the victim’s front and rear parts of the victim vehicle until the victim parked the vehicle at the place in this case and moved the vehicle again; and (c) the Defendant was only the only accused; and (b) in light of the fact that the Defendant did not deny the Defendant’s active act of damaging the victim vehicle while recognizing that the victim was the victim at the scene of the on-site CCTV at the time of the police investigation, while recognizing that the victim was himself/herself; and (d) in light of the fact that the Defendant did not actively commit the act of

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit.