재물손괴
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.
, however, for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although there was a writing written in the victim's Bows with dust to warn him that he will lose his illegal parking with a pipe hand on the victim's Bows. However, there was no writing using an insular tool, and due to the defendant's act, no screen has been given on the part of the damaged vehicle.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below rejected the above assertion by the defendant in detail on the grounds of appeal as to this part of this part. In addition to the circumstances stated by the court below, the court below rejected the above assertion by considering the following as follows: ① According to CCTV images, the head of the defendant's writing is confirmed (it is confirmed that it is not a scarfic tool) and the scarfic book remains on the scarfic unit; the above form remains difficult to appear as long as the people do not artificially; ② even if it is not a scarfic tool, the fact that the defendant damaged the damaged vehicle can be sufficiently screened if it is used on the scarfic unit covered by dust even if it is not a scarfic tool, and thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is not justified.
B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant denies the Defendant’s crime, and there are some circumstances to consider the motive for the instant crime in an unfavorable condition, or in some other circumstances, the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is less than the amount initially acknowledged by the summary order, and the Defendant appears not to have had a conclusive intent to damage, and in full view of the fact that the Defendant has no record of committing any crime and the reasons for sentencing revealed during the argument of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment is somewhat excessive.