The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was under the influence of alcohol and is not memory, the Defendant did not intentionally lick the vehicle and do not damage the property.

In addition, the face of one victim is not considered as food, but as a hand floor.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was suffering from stimulative disorder at the time of the instant crime, and was in a state of mental and physical weakness by drinking alcohol.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the Defendant had attempted to commit the instant crime from October 201 to March 201, and the Defendant did not pay the remainder of wages in return for the victim’s attempt to commit the instant crime.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant stated that he had a friend and drinking, and went to the victim’s office by driving the car while driving the car, and (b) the Defendant used approximately 20 km distance to the victim’s office at the time; (c) the victim’s office has damaged the house at the time of the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant’s behavior and condition confirmed in CCTV images taken at the victim’s office at the time of the instant crime, etc., the Defendant’s intent on the instant charges can be sufficiently recognized.

On the other hand, according to the above CCTV images, the defendant seems to have taken the face of the victim into the hand floor rather than drinking.

However, if the defendant caused the result of assaulting the victim, the mere fact that the method of assault is somewhat different has influenced the judgment.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the judgment of the court below affected the judgment is erroneous.