The defendant of misunderstanding of facts only has broken off the glass door of the victim B's residence door several times, and the fire extinguisher, which is a dangerous object, has never been flicked.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's act as a special crime of destroying and damaging property is erroneous.

At the victim C’s house, the Defendant followed the mother of the Defendant to the victim C, but did not contain any injury as described in the instant facts charged.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

사실오인 주장에 대한 판단 원심이 적법하게 채택ㆍ조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 사정, 즉 ① 피해자 B는 수사기관에서부터 원심 법정에 이르기까지 일관하여 ‘피고인이 소화기를 들어 현관문을 여러 번 내리쳐 현관문의 유리창을 깼고, 직접 이를 목격하였다’는 취지로 진술한 점, ② 피해자 C은 ‘피고인이 집에 무단으로 침입하여 이 사건 공소사실 제2의 나항 기재와 같은 행위를 하였다’고 진술하였고, 피해자 C의 진단서 및 피해 사진 역시 이에 부합하는 점, ③ 피고인이 수사기관에서 피해자 C의 집에 들어가지도 않았다고 부인하였다가 이를 번복하였던 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인에게 특수재물손괴죄와 상해죄가 성립한다고 인정한 원심 판단은 정당한 것으로 수긍된다.

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

The judgment of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretion is made within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the matters on the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, the sentencing of the first instance court, which is respected under the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle of our criminal procedure law, is unique and the appellate court.