The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by mistake of fact on the day of the instant case, only posted a steel string door before the victim’s house, and did not damage the front door with a brick.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant found the victim's house on the day of the instant case and destroyed the steel-frame with bricks.

① On October 29, 2015, the victim found the Defendant’s home and reported the fact to the police immediately after the two dials, and according to the 1112 Report Settlement Statement, the victim’s wife found the divorced husband and her door to the door.

“The report was received with the content that it was “.”

② The victim is consistent from the written statement prepared by the police on the day of the instant case to the lower court’s trial, and “The Defendant was able to open his door to the low-income house without any speech.”

As police officers examined the door, they had a stone in front of the door, and the steel studs were affixed several times on the door.

“At the time of the instant case, the Defendant made a statement to the lower court on the goods used by the Defendant, and brought about the relevant brick to the lower court. Such a victim’s statement has credibility.

However, it is difficult to find out any other circumstances where false information can be changed.

③ On February 19, 2016, after the instant case, the Defendant was punished for committing a crime of violating the court’s order to protect the victim by opening a door at the victim’s house, opening a scarcity, and opening a scarcity with an scarcity, etc. (Seoul District Court Decision 2016No2893 decided Jun. 2, 2017; 2017Do9408 decided Aug. 17, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive). Defendant was punished for committing a crime of violating the court’s order to protect the victim (Seoul District Court Decision 2016No289 decided Mar. 2, 2093).