The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of fact (the point of damage to Defendant B’s property) obtained a Kameras owned by the victim G from H, and then took it back to the office to verify the contents of the Kameras affixed thereon;

The F executive secretary was laid on M, but the M did not receive it, and only fell on the ground floor, and there was no fact that Defendant B laid the camera on the floor as stated in the judgment of the court below and intentionally damaged it.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the fine of 700,000 won, the fine of 1.5 million won, and the fine of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, Defendant B’s assertion on this part is without merit, since it can be acknowledged that Defendant B forced the Kameras cited by H and was inside the floor and damaged the Kameras owned by the victim G.

(i) was on the site at that time;

G and H consistently present at the investigative agency and court, and consistently stated to the effect that Defendant B was released from her corridor and damaged the corridor (Evidence No. 61,71, page 137, 149, page 2 of the trial record). However, according to the file and transcript (Evidence No. 40, 43 of the evidence record), Defendant B’s statement conforms to the contents of G, by stating that “I am out of the floor, dys, dys, dys, dys, and dys, dys, dys, dys, and dys, dys, dys, dys, dys, and dys, dys, dys, dys, and dys, dys, dys, dys, etc.).”

3) At the lower court’s meeting as a witness, M stated to the effect that Defendant B, “M Ma,” and the following, Defendant B laid the above-mentioned Kameras, but did not receive it (No. 227 pages of the trial record). However, the foregoing video is recorded at the time of the trial.